synthetic brolife

[1338 h4x0r]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/synthetic-life/

party people say heil

the only part of the article that confused me was this

“I view DNA as an analog information system,” he said. “and I hope to convince you in fact that it is absolutely the software of life.”

wait

how is DNA analog

[Haliburton]

stop it man now seriously

[mistersnitch]

god damnit why can't technology just stop, i don't want this to happen.

[1338 h4x0r]

stop it man now seriously

deal with it

[Moon Flavor]

look at me i'm 1338 haxor i like to flaunt my smartness and want technology to just completely **** us over because i haven't noticed the damage it's done already

or something

[1338 h4x0r]

LSD the product of years and years of painstaking efforts in chemistry

shame on you

[DBoons Ghost]

This is the clown who will bring doom upon us all with his meddling.

Why can't you just be a computer nerd and be happy with that?

[Haliburton]

guys

what would happen if you gave a robot lsd

[1338 h4x0r]

also I don't see how I'm flaunting anything

I post a link to a New York Times story and ask an honest question about why DNA is supposed to be analog, admitting ignorance

how is that flaunting

[mistersnitch]

what does 1338 h4x0r have to do with anything?

[Haliburton]

i dont think you're smart nevermind flaunting its ok

[Moon Flavor]

LSD the product of years and years of painstaking efforts in chemistry

shame on you

Just because that's the only thread we've had a discussion in doesn't mean you have to keep bringing it up; especially in a way that makes absolutely no sense

i thought i made it clear that i only did acid twice and haven't done it in a couple years and probably never will again?

btw, synthetic life= bad idea


straight up

[1338 h4x0r]

This is the clown who will bring doom upon us all with his meddling.

Why can't you just be a computer nerd and be happy with that?

My comment

The upside of this is that, even though the potential for abuse will almost certainly be realized, we’ll eventually figure out how to engineer human behavior and intellect through genetics and neuromimetic devices and hopefully give rise to a race of less dumb, less shallow, less greedy, less irrational people.

I’m all for Earth being populated entirely by Roy Battys.

guys

what would happen if you gave a robot lsd

depends on whether it had a serotonergic system like ours

I mean, duh

i dont think you're smart nevermind flaunting its ok

you don't have the metacognitive ability to recognize what talent is, or your own lack thereof

it's ok chad

[1338 h4x0r]

btw, synthetic life= bad idea


straight up

deal with it

[mistersnitch]

The upside of this is that, even though the potential for abuse will almost certainly be realized, we’ll eventually figure out how to engineer human behavior and intellect through genetics and neuromimetic devices and hopefully give rise to a race of less dumb, less shallow, less greedy, less irrational people.


**** that

[Haliburton]

hey now i've got mega talents

[1338 h4x0r]

**** that

yeah **** admitting that we have huge faults

WE ARE THE **** IT COULDN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS

hey now i've got mega talents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

"Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill."

"Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others."

this is just what I'm talking about chad

[mistersnitch]

yeah **** admitting that we have huge faults

WE ARE THE **** IT COULDN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS



no thanks more like **** eugenics

[beso negro]

“I view DNA as an analog information system,” he said. “and I hope to convince you in fact that it is absolutely the software of life.”

wait

how is DNA analog

how is it not

[iamtherobots]

synthetic life is awesome, haven't you fags watched anime?

[mistersnitch]

**** science enforcing what is "good" in an inescapable and irreversible way

[Haliburton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

"Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill."

"Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others."

this is just what I'm talking about chad
ya this is what you are doing bro thats what im saying

[1338 h4x0r]

no thanks more like **** eugenics

this is way different from eugenics bb

how is it not

isn't encoding of information in DNA essentially discrete?

you could call an A-T base pair "zero" and a G-C base pair "one"

right?

**** science enforcing what is "good" in an inescapable and irreversible way

what are you Luddites doing about it?

oh yeah that's right talking ****

deal with it

ya this is what you are doing bro thats what im saying

no I fully recognize your talents in contriving strained analogies and using scr1pt k1dd13 t00lz

you're #1 in these areas

[mistersnitch]

this is way different from eugenics bb


you are right, i don't know why i said that.



what are you Luddites doing about it?

oh yeah that's right talking ****

deal with it


0 substance right here

[1338 h4x0r]

propose an alternative to science

otherwise deal with it

[Haliburton]

no I fully recognize your talents in contriving strained analogies
i dont think someone competent who underestimated their abilities would bring up this study

because that would imply they think they are underestimating their talents

which would mean they are actually overestimating their talents

so that puts you in the same boat

not everyone is pasty white and self conscious bro

[mistersnitch]

i don't have a problem with science.

[1338 h4x0r]

i dont think someone competent who underestimated their abilities would bring up this study

because that would imply they think they are underestimating their talents

which would mean they are actually overestimating their talents

so that puts you in the same boat

lolwut

i don't have a problem with science.

except when it arrives at conclusions you don't like

hey just like creationists

[Haliburton]

if you believe the study is correct

and you think you are in the group that underestimates their talents

then you believe that you are in fact underestimating yourself

which means you believe you actually have talent

which means you're no longer underestimating yourself so you move out of that group

keep up

[beso negro]

i guess youre right dna is digital

[1338 h4x0r]

if you believe the study is correct

and you think you are in the group that underestimates their talents

then you believe that you are in fact underestimating yourself

which means you believe you actually have talent

which means you're no longer underestimating yourself so you move out of that group

keep up

false dichotomy

overestimate and underestimate aren't the only two options

[mistersnitch]

lolwut



except when it arrives at conclusions you don't like

hey just like creationists

how is that a "conclusion" you stupidbutt, this is something that scientists decide to do, not an impartial truth discovered by scientists.

[1338 h4x0r]

well the conclusion agreed upon by the most biologists is that we can replicate, reverse engineer, modify and harness life and life processes

come on it's not magical

like any other advance it has huge benefit potential and huge abuse potential

just needs to be used responsibly

and "stupidbutt", what are you, five?

[Haliburton]

false dichotomy

overestimate and underestimate aren't the only two optionswell ya i knew what you were saying was dumb from the start im just going along with it for the sake of argument

[1338 h4x0r]

you haven't told us why it's dumb

[mistersnitch]

well the conclusion agreed upon by the most biologists is that we can replicate, reverse engineer, modify and harness life and life processes

yeah we can but let's not


come on it's not magical

like any other advance it has huge benefit potential and huge abuse potential

just needs to be used responsibly

let's just not use it ever


and "stupidbutt", what are you, five?

i'm thirteen

[Haliburton]

you haven't told us why it's dumb
ya i did i explained it in the post not before this one but before this one

[1338 h4x0r]

your post didn't make sense

yeah we can but let's not



let's just not use it ever

the genie's out of the bottle already

your solution is unrealistic

i'm thirteen

not using insults like stupidbutt will go a long way to projecting a more mature image

[Haliburton]

your post didn't make senseya it did

[TerranYouApart]

there's already enough bros why would we need more

[mistersnitch]

the genie's out of the bottle already

your solution is unrealistic

not if people stop using it.


not using insults like stupidbutt will go a long way to projecting a more mature image

understanding human interaction will go a long way to not getting into these kinds of misunderstandings

[1338 h4x0r]

not if people stop using it

yeah well a multibillion dollar a year industry isn't just going to eat **** and die so I suggest you come up with a different solution

understanding human interaction will go a long way to not getting into these kinds of misunderstandings

"stupidbutt" is just a lame insult

you could have called me "doodyhead" at the very least

at the very least

[TerranYouApart]

lol this guy ^^

[mistersnitch]

yeah well a multibillion dollar a year industry isn't just going to eat **** and die so I suggest you come up with a different solution

it should just go **** itself

[1338 h4x0r]

lol this guy ^^

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0801/denial-demotivational-poster-1200262965.jpg

it should just go **** itself

not going to happen

hey if you don't like it, just go into denial like Already_Taken

[mistersnitch]

not going to happen

hey if you don't like it, just go into denial like Already_Taken

the lack of a holocaust was never going to happen either

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't see how genetic engineering is going to make a second holocaust happen

[mistersnitch]

no i'm just saying just because enough people are amoral enough to do something doesn't mean that thing is justifiable

[1338 h4x0r]

Godwin's Law validated one hours and three minutes after OP

Holy Christ this is one for the records

[1338 h4x0r]

how is genetic engineering amoral

[mistersnitch]

godwin's law is just an excuse to hate jewish people

[1338 h4x0r]

no it's simply the observation that:

lim t->infinity P(unfavorable Nazi comparison | controversial topic on the Internet) = 1

[Haliburton]

whats not to hate about jewish people

[TerranYouApart]

how is genetic engineering amoral

dude what is there to gain from genetic engineering except a snobby *** "master race" that basically bought all of their traits.

[mistersnitch]

no it's simply the observation that:

lim t->infinity P(unfavorable Nazi comparison | controversial topic on the Internet) = 1

i know what godwin's law is, i also know that people on neo-nazi forums get off on it (because i am a neo-nazi and frequent these forums)

how is genetic engineering amoral

because it makes me want to throw up.

[1338 h4x0r]

dude what is there to gain from genetic engineering except a snobby *** "master race" that basically bought all of their traits.

so maybe they'll have godlike minds and bodies but at least us Joe Sixpacks got beer n' Hendrix WOOOOOOOO

i know what godwin's law is, i also know that people on neo-nazi forums get off on it (because i am a neo-nazi and frequent these forums)

really

you're not really on the moral high ground then are you

because it makes me want to throw up.

then throw up crybaby

[Haliburton]

im going to bio-mod my arm and punch you in the cunt

[1338 h4x0r]

siqq

[TerranYouApart]

imperfection has beauty why don't you get this. you're in denial that you are imperfect as well, but it's ok.

we all are.

[1338 h4x0r]

imperfection has beauty why don't you get this. you're in denial that you are imperfect as well, but it's ok.

we all are.

of course I'm imperfect dumbass

but being imperfect is no excuse not to improve

[TerranYouApart]

improving is a necessary part of life.

which is why genetic engineering is amoral. if there's nothing to improve, then what do you do?

[mistersnitch]

so maybe they'll have godlike minds and bodies but at least us Joe Sixpacks got beer n' Hendrix WOOOOOOOO
genetically engineering ourselves to be better than we are now is just a sad reflection on how insecure we are. and if you are proposing that these technological advances will lead to a consistently "better" human race then it sort of implies that the measures taken to improve us will be involuntary, because a lot of people wouldn't use them otherwise and you will never reach your pathetic utopia where we all have giant cocks and mind-reading powers and ****


really

you're not really on the moral high ground then are you

no, i don't have compassion for minorities and want them to suffer but at least i know that is immoral, unlike scientists.

[1338 h4x0r]

improving is a necessary part of life.

which is why genetic engineering is amoral. if there's nothing to improve, then what do you do?

there will always be things to improve

genetically engineering ourselves to be better than we are now is just a sad reflection on how insecure we are. and if you are proposing that these technological advances will lead to a consistently "better" human race then it sort of implies that the measures taken to improve us will be involuntary, because a lot of people wouldn't use them otherwise and you will never reach your pathetic utopia where we all have giant cocks and mind-reading powers and ****

I don't believe in utopia

and no personal modification is no more "forced" than tattooing

let everyone else become irrelevant if they want

no, i don't have compassion for minorities and want them to suffer but at least i know that is immoral, unlike scientists.

is this a troll

if so it isn't very good

[mistersnitch]

I don't believe in utopia

and no personal modification is no more "forced" than tattooing

let everyone else become irrelevant if they want


yeah see this is not a very nice thing to do

is this a troll

if so it isn't very good

i'm not a troll, you are just lacking self-awareness or something

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah see this is not a very nice thing to do

it's like believing in Christian Science

you should be allowed to if you want

granted you might end up denying yourself life-saving medical care, but w/e

[mistersnitch]

it's like believing in Christian Science

you should be allowed to if you want

granted you might end up denying yourself life-saving medical care, but w/e

yeah you should be allowed to, but you shouldn't do it unless you are an insecure asshole with delusions of grandiosity

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah

likewise, why cut yourself off from any technology that could dramatically improve your quality of life

[mistersnitch]

what are you talking about? and if you are saying people who buy into this are as delusional as people who buy into christian science then i agree with you and you aren't really helping your case

[1338 h4x0r]

"believe" is a poor choice of words

"believe" implies faith

trusting all the empirical evidence from biology, and hell, just plain hard facts from successful applications of genetic engineering isn't faith

[Meatplow]

Chris, I cannot decide if you are a finely crafted troll or actually serious.

I will do more reading on this topic and come back with a response.

[1338 h4x0r]

both

[mistersnitch]

"believe" is a poor choice of words

"believe" implies faith

trusting all the empirical evidence from biology, and hell, just plain hard facts from successful applications of genetic engineering isn't faith

what? no one is talking about this. you are the only one who used the word "believe" and even if someone else had, what you are saying doesn't make sense. trusting empirical scientific evidence doesn't automatically lead one to believe that the human race needs to be improved through genetic engineering.

[1338 h4x0r]

what? no one is talking about this. you are the only one who used the word "believe" and even if someone else had, what you are saying doesn't make sense

alright "buy into"

trusting empirical scientific evidence doesn't automatically lead one to believe that the human race needs to be improved through genetic engineering.

it could be though

[mistersnitch]

yeah it could but that is irrelevant to what we are talking about

[Haliburton]

the human race needs to be improved its terrible

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah it could but that is irrelevant to what we are talking about

how so

the human race needs to be improved its terrible

I'd give it a D+ right now

[1338 h4x0r]

it's the 21st century and we've got people like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6KGZ4UQjgc&eurl

D+

maybe

[mistersnitch]

how so


everyone knows the human race could be improved by genetic engineering. you are saying that it should.

[1338 h4x0r]

genetic and neural engineering

versus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6KGZ4UQjgc&eurl

tough call

[Haliburton]

tbh you could just kill those people

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm more compassionate than that

[mistersnitch]

what the **** is going on there

but who cares, why is it inherently better for the world population to be more intelligent. it doesn't necessarily mean they will have more fulfilling lives, and otherwise you are just shortsightedly worshiping some hazy ideal of "progress" and "improvement."

[1338 h4x0r]

idk being elite at arts and sciences could lead to more fulfilling lives

[mistersnitch]

it could but that is completely speculation. heightened intelligence could also lead to nervous breakdowns.

[mistersnitch]

basically rich insecure people will go do all these genetic enhancement procedures so their offspring can be glorious, and poor people/more grounded people will not, and there will be the intelligent rich elite and the poor stupid class completely subjected to the will of the rich elite, kind of like how it always is but a lot worse, and it will suck suck suck

[Haliburton]

rich people are generally better so its cool

[freeliminator]

Chris, I cannot decide if you are a finely crafted troll or actually serious.

an asspie

[Haliburton]

no he's an autistic who underestimates his skills

[mistersnitch]

k you haven't responded so i win

[mistersnitch]

yesss

[Haliburton]

i responded for him

[Haliburton]

dont worry we both have pretty much the same opinions on everything ever

[mistersnitch]

you guys should be friends

[mistersnitch]

how come you don't want anyone to know you're online?

[Meatplow]

This could be a good thing I suppose. Or a terrible one.

Humans are flawed, frustrating creatures and this is why utopia is not achievable. I don't rightly know if it could be any other way, as long as we have the subjective interests and desires which define us. Reprogramming these peculiarities out will make life less interesting, thats for sure.

[McP3000]

oh look a retarded thread by 1338

move along

[Pop music sucks]

Analog has more discrepencies than digital. DNA, in a complex series of interconnectivity, falters more often in transcripting a copy into RNA than we think. If DNA was perfectly sequenced, we wouldn't have a lot of problems as we do now.

So the analogy to analog was fitting.

[Foehammer]

My comment

The upside of this is that, even though the potential for abuse will almost certainly be realized, we’ll eventually figure out how to engineer human behavior and intellect through genetics and neuromimetic devices and hopefully give rise to a race of less dumb, less shallow, less greedy, less irrational people.






Sounds like transhumanism to me.
It's about time we were less dumb, less shallow, less greedy, and less irrational.

Kawhoogers.

Why don't we just link all of our brains together?
Hivemind, anyone?

[1338 h4x0r]

it could but that is completely speculation. heightened intelligence could also lead to nervous breakdowns.

Yeah you might notice how many dumbshits are about

basically rich insecure people will go do all these genetic enhancement procedures so their offspring can be glorious, and poor people/more grounded people will not, and there will be the intelligent rich elite and the poor stupid class completely subjected to the will of the rich elite, kind of like how it always is but a lot worse, and it will suck suck suck

What if it's socialized

k you haven't responded so i win

I was sleeping

yesss

I WAS SLEEPING

This could be a good thing I suppose. Or a terrible one.

Humans are flawed, frustrating creatures and this is why utopia is not achievable. I don't rightly know if it could be any other way, as long as we have the subjective interests and desires which define us. Reprogramming these peculiarities out will make life less interesting, thats for sure.

Why would you program them out?

I'm not talking about that

oh look a retarded thread by 1338

Oh look a Christfag in denial

siqq

Analog has more discrepencies than digital. DNA, in a complex series of interconnectivity, falters more often in transcripting a copy into RNA than we think. If DNA was perfectly sequenced, we wouldn't have a lot of problems as we do now.

So the analogy to analog was fitting.

I don't think so, because then DNA is just a slightly crappy analog system

Base pairs do not transmit real-valued information

Sounds like transhumanism to me.
It's about time we were less dumb, less shallow, less greedy, and less irrational.

Kawhoogers.

Why don't we just link all of our brains together?
Hivemind, anyone?

That would be putting all our eggs in one basket, nah

[mistersnitch]

What if it's socialized


what, you mean so it's free to everyone? that is extremely unrealistic on a global scale.

[1338 h4x0r]

idk depends on how the future turns out

[mistersnitch]

the future is probably going to be pretty cool even if it sucks

[1338 h4x0r]

arguments from incredulity

why do people use them against me

is it because they're stupid?

scared?

maybe a little of both?

[mistersnitch]

did you just post something that meant anything or conveyed any message or should i just leave

[1338 h4x0r]

I'll assume "stupid"

[mistersnitch]

so i won this argument right?

[1338 h4x0r]

yes





























on opposite day

[mistersnitch]

oh ho ho!

[1338 h4x0r]

no, j/k your argument sucked

[1338 h4x0r]

the bright side is that your middle school English class may include lessons on rhetoric and logic

[mistersnitch]

no, j/k your argument sucked

please clarify because you seem to have given up abruptly

[1338 h4x0r]

clarify what

your terrible appeals to consequences of a belief?

[mistersnitch]

clarify what

your terrible appeals to consequences of a belief?

yes, yes you are getting closer to saying something, please elaborate just a bit more

[1338 h4x0r]

You did this several times during the thread:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

"X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences. "

Since it's an especially pathetic fallacy, it indicates that you have a hard time coming to grips with the truth and have to sling mud instead

[mistersnitch]

k good there is a post we can make something out of

now is the point where you have to point out at least one example where i committed the logical fallacy "X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences. "

go

[1338 h4x0r]

god damnit why can't technology just stop, i don't want this to happen.

four posts in

ball's in your court

[mistersnitch]

it is now up to you to say where in that post i made any claim about the truth of anything. not wanting something to happen =/= saying the science backing that thing is untrue. you have made that fallacy several times in this thread so what's up yo

[1338 h4x0r]

you committed the fallacy of wishful thinking then

and as long as you concede the science is right, I'm coo'

[mistersnitch]

you committed the fallacy of wishful thinking then

no. wishful thinking is

"I want P to be true.
Therefore, P is true. "

i never committed said fallacy. i think the consequences of what we are discussing would be bad, and so i don't want it to happen. no logical fallacies.


and as long as you concede the science is right, I'm coo'

we were never arguing about the science you silly-bobo.

[1338 h4x0r]

no but you seem to want badly that this kind of research and industry end, so you believe that it will end

(it's not going to end)

[Haliburton]

it will end when people go crazy about them evil scientists playing god

[mistersnitch]

no but you seem to want badly that this kind of research and industry end, so you believe that it will end

(it's not going to end)

except that i never said anything indicating that i believe it will end

[1338 h4x0r]

you strenuously implied that it will

[mistersnitch]

except that i didn't

[1338 h4x0r]

oh ok so you're not disagreeing about the soundness of the science, and you're not disagreeing that the methods revealed by it will be carried out

I am satisfied with the outcome of this thread :)

[Haliburton]

it'll be kinda sad if intellectualism dies though

how am i supposed to feel better than other people then

[1338 h4x0r]

move to libertopia

[1338 h4x0r]

you are nowhere near intellectual btw

[Haliburton]

you dont know me bro

[1338 h4x0r]

I know you commit logical fallacies constantly and responded to one of my posts with "take that to chess club"

you're not an intellectual

bro

[Haliburton]

that wasnt me

what are you going to do with your life when everyone is of equal talent and motivation

[1338 h4x0r]

you're not the one going around making shitty analogies

[Haliburton]

i try to make my analogies amusing and sacrifice a little bit of relevancy but they still retain a lot of relevance tbh

but it wasnt me that said the chess thing

and

what are you going to do with your life when everyone is of equal talent and motivation

[mistersnitch]

oh ok so you're not disagreeing about the soundness of the science, and you're not disagreeing that the methods revealed by it will be carried out

I am satisfied with the outcome of this thread :)

okay cool we were arguing for a few pages about whether it is morally justifiable for this to happen but no obviously you thought i was saying something other than what i was explicitly saying

misunderstanding solved!

[1338 h4x0r]

i try to make my analogies amusing and sacrifice a little bit of relevancy but they still retain a lot of relevance tbh

You aspire to (and occasionally even reach) medieval absurdity in your analogies

but it wasnt me that said the chess thing


http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17263095#post17263095

and

idk

man vs. nature I guess

[Haliburton]

that wasnt me i havent posted in 2 years

i dont know what you're talking about

[1338 h4x0r]

shut up chad

[Haliburton]

okay but what is man vs nature supposed to mean

im not seeing how life where everyone is equal wouldnt be retardedly dull and unfulfilling

[1338 h4x0r]

deal with it

[Haliburton]

well its not like its only going to suck for me

unless you're going to kill yourself once we get there

in suicide by robot sodomy

[1338 h4x0r]

no

I eagerly await this day

[Haliburton]

you're offering no arguments for why its a good thing and not a bad one

[1338 h4x0r]

moral relativism bro

i'm a nihilist

[Haliburton]

nihilists can still care about their personal perception of pleasure

[1338 h4x0r]

u(genetic engineering) > u(being surrounded by ****tards)

[Haliburton]

well you dont know that for sure yet

equal capability and motivation is going to increase competition for the stuff you want to do

how are you going to feel about your assigned job as street sweeper

[1338 h4x0r]

there will be no need for jobs per se

[1338 h4x0r]

we can always use groids for menial labor btw

[Haliburton]

theres no need for one but if you dont have a career we come back to the point of what you are going to do with your existence

i mean its already meaningless its probably not a good thing to subtract the distractions we currently have

[1338 h4x0r]

do something cool I guess

[Haliburton]

but thats what im saying, if everyone is equally motivated and able how are you going to be able to pick the stuff you want to do at will

unless the cool stuff you want to do is abundantly available

but generally cool stuff isnt abundantly available

[1338 h4x0r]

there'll just be harder and harder challenges

[Haliburton]

no there wont the nature of everyone being equally able and motivated makes it random selection, not a challenge

[1338 h4x0r]

we'll still have a long way to go in understanding and controlling nature though

[Haliburton]

why would humans have a part in that when we can create things more intelligent than we are

[1338 h4x0r]

building a Dyson swarm could occupy idle hands

[Haliburton]

it would seem more efficient to have robots do that sort of thing too

if human beings become obsolete then idk you cant think thats a good thing if you value your own pleasure

[1338 h4x0r]

we become superhuman

or let them take over when we die

duh

[Haliburton]

so you're indirectly suicidal then

i see

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm in favor of excellence

[1338 h4x0r]

transferring your mind into something that isn't your body isn't really suicide

[Haliburton]

why not take up genocidal eugenics then

same result

but quicker

[Haliburton]

transferring your mind into something that isn't your body isn't really suicideyeah but we dont know if your conscious is super-physical

i mean we could copy all of the atoms in your brain precisely and give them another body but your consciousness would ostensibly remain with the original and the new one would simply be a copy

or i dont know, nobody knows that enough to say so

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah but we dont know if your conscious is super-physical

i mean we could copy all of the atoms in your brain precisely and give them another body but your consciousness would ostensibly remain with the original and the new one would simply be a copy

based on what we know about neuroscience, a copy is just as good as the original

[Haliburton]

thats not the same thing as it continuing your own current consciousness when we're talking about whether transferring the physical makeup of your brain over is like dying

[1338 h4x0r]

the original doesn't have to die

I mean it will eventually but necessarily as a result of copying

[1338 h4x0r]

I wonder whether a copied brain would want to do the exact same things as the original, and the two people would be bumping into each other constantly

based on what little I know about chaotic dynamics, the answer, fortunately, is probably no

[Haliburton]

if the original is a human being and human beings are being outmoded then we arrive at the same problem as before in that you are indirectly suicidal by promoting this agenda since you're a human being and all

but i suppose we dont understand the nature of consciousness enough to know if we can make our current consciousnesses survive indefinitely, or even what our current consciousnesses are if not part of the physical realm

[1338 h4x0r]

atheism = faitheism

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm a transhumanist btw

[Haliburton]

maybe people have souls man

maybe theres a god

[Haliburton]

what happens if you like

cut a brain in half

and physically copy the alternate halves and stick a copied half to an original half

what about the consciousness then

[Gattsu347]

Robots

[1338 h4x0r]

maybe people have souls man

maybe theres a god

The more light we shed on the workings of the brain (and indeed the rest of the body), the less likely it seems that there are individual souls

maybe a world soul (anima mundi) but not individual souls

what happens if you like

cut a brain in half

and physically copy the alternate halves and stick a copied half to an original half

what about the consciousness then

would probably go on as normal

this is kind of like asking whether retinal implants will really make someone see

too bad we can't test that particular idea yet

except that, oh yeah, retinal implants are becoming successful in clinical trials

Robots

I'd be surprised if you knew the definition of "robot" or "computer"

we're already biological robots

duh

if you can't stop making giddy dumbass comments about "robots" in my threads, stop posting in them

[Gattsu347]

itt Brobots play beerpong*








































* i never read anything in your threads so there

[1338 h4x0r]

if you don't read anything in my threads, why post in them

oh I see you're just going to make dumbass fratboy comments

[1338 h4x0r]

itt Brobots play beerpong*








































* i never read anything in your threads so there

quoted

[Pop music sucks]

I don't think so, because then DNA is just a slightly crappy analog system

Base pairs do not transmit real-valued informationIt is a slightly crappy system.

The system as a whole. Kinda like an archive. Try as one may to keep it organized as possible and keeping books from fraying, there will be a few mishandling from other users of the archive.

[1338 h4x0r]

It is

But it's still essentially digital in terms of how it encodes information

(I meant to say digital system, not analog system, wtf)

[The Angry God]

digital gates are analog devices which get hysterical about changes in voltages about a given threshold

digital is an illusion superimposed on the infinite complexity of analog reality

digital is gay it's an artificial limit placed on the infinite complexity of the universe because we are too stupid to even begin to understand how to deal with the chaotic system that is our universe

digital is gay

[siva_chair]

ITT digital likes other digital dudes.

[1338 h4x0r]

digital gates are analog devices which get hysterical about changes in voltages about a given threshold

Actually they don't get hysterical about changes in voltage levels which is why they're so useful ... there is a wide range of what qualifies as 1 or 0 so the system is more robust

digital is an illusion superimposed on the infinite complexity of analog reality

Don't quantum particles (the tiniest things whose existence we are sure of) move in a discrete fashion

digital is gay it's an artificial limit placed on the infinite complexity of the universe because we are too stupid to even begin to understand how to deal with the chaotic system that is our universe

huh

[Pastorius]

dude what is there to gain from genetic engineering except a snobby *** "master race" that basically bought all of their traits.

no more cancer

quantum particles are more probablistic than discrete

[1338 h4x0r]

maybe I'm thinking of how the energy levels are discrete idk

oh and btw Already_Taken is a moron

[siva_chair]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

^Already_Taken imo^

[Pastorius]

maybe I'm thinking of how the energy levels are discrete idk

oh and btw Already_Taken is a moron

yes, energy levels are discrete but location is not

[1338 h4x0r]

I haven't been wrong about anything for months :(

[Pastorius]

But don't worry, I shall rescue you. You phrased it as a question!

But the tiniest things we are (fairly) sure of are quarks, and we haven't got a ****ing clue how they behave, except they combine in colourless combinations. Not knowing how much fractional energy partons (bassicaly quarks and gluons) carry is one of the biggest pains in the arse for particle physicists and means we have to work around it. So who knows if quarks carry discrete amounts of energy?

[1338 h4x0r]

ah k

I promised myself I will learn this stuff when I fill in the gaping holes in my vector calculus knowledge

[Pastorius]

You should familiarise yourself with Minkowski space if you're gonna tackle particle physics. It's what we worked in anyway. To be honest the manipulation isn't that hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelstam_variables

They're the most important things.

[1338 h4x0r]

whenever I see a Slavic and/or Jewish name attached to something in math or physics, it's usually assrape

[siva_chair]

<3 Feynman

[1338 h4x0r]

lol wtf I'm not even a physics major why am I wanting to learn all this

[Pastorius]

Because it's interesting! I love knowing what's going on at the LHC (lol nothing) and knowing how the detectors are set up and knowing what they're doing and what it means.

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah it is tbh

I think I need to prioritize though

my ultimate goal as an academic is to become a neuroscientist and neither quantum mechanics nor relativity play much of a role in that...

[siva_chair]

It means prepare for radioactive cosmic zombie invasion imo.

[1338 h4x0r]

I mean yeah it is all quantum particles but as far as anyone knows they don't play any direct role in neural computation unlike what Roger Penrose wants you to believe

[siva_chair]

yeah it is tbh

I think I need to prioritize though

my ultimate goal as an academic is to become a neuroscientist and neither quantum mechanics nor relativity play much of a role in that...

Not exactly true. There are lots of emerging models of the brain that are based in quantum physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

EDIT: Saw edit. Nvm.

[Pastorius]

yeah it is tbh

I think I need to prioritize though

my ultimate goal as an academic is to become a neuroscientist and neither quantum mechanics nor relativity play much of a role in that...

I can't remember exactly what it was, but the latest Physics World had a big article on quantum activity in the brain. Maybe you'd enjoy it.

I also just read a book that suggested something about how the brain might work which made sense to me, using a theory called self-organised criticality. Basically it suggested a method of learning is to try out random pathways of neurons (or whatever) and if the desired outcome is not reached, weaken those pathways, and if it is, strengthen them. After a very short time the model that was constructed to display this was able to switch back and forth between different modes of 'thinking' very quickly.

If you're interested, it's in Per Bak's "How Nature Works"

[fafafafa]

my ultimate goal as an academic is to become a neuroscientist and neither quantum mechanics nor relativity play much of a role in that...
i thought you were still clinging to determinism why would you want to learn about quantum mechanics its just going to confuse you

[siva_chair]

So he can change his mind on his major again, imo.

[gregulus]

yeah it is tbh

I think I need to prioritize though

This is my problem. I want to become more well versed in higher-level mathematics and physics, but I should really be focusing on things related my area of study.

[1338 h4x0r]

i thought you were still clinging to determinism why would you want to learn about quantum mechanics its just going to confuse you

at the classical level things are pretty much deterministic

if not predictable

So he can change his mind on his major again, imo.

I've got years to go before grad school tbh

[1338 h4x0r]

I can't remember exactly what it was, but the latest Physics World had a big article on quantum activity in the brain. Maybe you'd enjoy it

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/39671

This complex organ, which is responsible for our thoughts, feelings and awareness, has lured many physicists into applying their own bags of tricks to questions in neuroscience. Some ideas, such as the speculation put forward by Roger Penrose of Oxford University in the UK and Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona in the US that brain function is influenced by quantum phenomena, are not taken seriously by neuroscientists. But there are still many respectable roles to be filled by expatriated physicists.

Penrose and Hameroff suggest that microtubules are the ghost in the machine, but these are structural supports for the cell and I don't see how they play any role in computation which takes place between neurons (and, to some extent, glial cells) ... the brain is a giant "swarm intelligence," which is to say that none of its constituents are intelligent but the process they create as a network (sometimes) is

I also just read a book that suggested something about how the brain might work which made sense to me, using a theory called self-organised criticality. Basically it suggested a method of learning is to try out random pathways of neurons (or whatever) and if the desired outcome is not reached, weaken those pathways, and if it is, strengthen them. After a very short time the model that was constructed to display this was able to switch back and forth between different modes of 'thinking' very quickly

Nice ... I mean is that something that can be applied? that would be interesting

[fafafafa]

at the classical level things are pretty much deterministic

if not predictable

yeah and the world used to be flat whats your point

[Pastorius]

I'm sure it could be in the future. I mean, they've made models of it where pixels (neurons) are connected to another random pixel and the system evolves to a state where it can quickly switch between pressing the right button based on which colour light shows. Obviously there isn't a real light and no button, but you know what I mean.

Another attractive point of this theory is you can knock out a huge chunk of pixels and the system will very quickly make new pathways to do the same thing.

If you're really interested, http://www.chialvo.net/files/xx-2001-bak.pdf

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah and the world used to be flat whats your point

another weak analogy huh

I'm sure it could be in the future. I mean, they've made models of it where pixels (neurons) are connected to another random pixel and the system evolves to a state where it can quickly switch between pressing the right button based on which colour light shows. Obviously there isn't a real light and no button, but you know what I mean.

Another attractive point of this theory is you can knock out a huge chunk of pixels and the system will very quickly make new pathways to do the same thing.

If you're really interested, http://www.chialvo.net/files/xx-2001-bak.pdf

all neural network models share the property of graceful degradation, i.e., they continue to perform under crappy circumstances

it's interesting because, e.g., the feature detectors in backprop face recognition networks respond most strongly not to specific features like eyes or noses but holistic "face categories", such that the recognition is evenly distributed throughout the network

but I'm looking on page 4 now and I see what looks kind of like backpropagation on the surface, except a lot less complicated, and whereas backprop brings synaptic strengths up or down, this model just brings them down

interesting

looks cool, I'm going to read more and discuss it on the xkcd fora and try to figure it out ... this is very unlike the models I am familiar with

lol Per Bak

"He was the most American of Danes," said Predrag Cvitanović. "Danes eschew confrontation, but he was arrogant and loved to fight with his colleagues in academia. We all have stories of how we first met him, usually remembered by some outrageous statement or insult."

[fafafafa]

another weak analogy huh
it wasnt an analogy

what

[Chris Is Gay]

it was an analogy

you are making an analogy between a widely held belief that turned out not to be true and another widely held belief which you believe will be shown not to be true (by analogy)

the reason it's a weak analogy is because the flat world belief was (or is) held either in ignorance of evidence, or in spite of it

not so with determinism

as far as I know quantum particles are the only source of true randomness where even systems like the weather are just pseudorandom to a very high degree

[fafafafa]

or in spite of it

not so with determinism
ok come back once you have read about quantum mechanics

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

The upside of this is that, even though the potential for abuse will almost certainly be realized, we’ll eventually figure out how to engineer human behavior and intellect through genetics and neuromimetic devices and hopefully give rise to a race of less dumb, less shallow, less greedy, less irrational people.Would they be us? human obviously, but would it matter to anything that they are different.

dont have a problem with anything but i don't a way you can humans dumb, shallow, greedy and irrational

when obviously we are the least dumb shallow greedy irrational people around you see

[gregulus]

Determinism in the sense that I think Chris is using it (i.e. in opposition to free will) is not incompatible with quantum randomness. Assuming that actions can be due to quantum mechanical properties, it necessarily follows that free will does not exist. There is no way that the individual acting can control the probabilistic nature of the quantum particle.

If Chad is referring to determinism in the Laplacian sense, then he is right in that quantum mechanics essentially nailed the coffin shut on that one.

[siva_chair]

Determinism in the sense that I think Chris is using it (i.e. in opposition to free will) is not incompatible with quantum randomness. Assuming that actions can be due to quantum mechanical properties, it necessarily follows that free will does not exist. There is no way that the individual acting can control the probabilistic nature of the quantum particle.

If Chad is referring to determinism in the Laplacian sense, then he is right in that quantum mechanics essentially nailed the coffin shut on that one.

Well I'm not so sure about that one.

I would say that most people probably do not tend to exercise "free will" and act in a relatively mechanistic manner. I think the systemic limitation of free will usually springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of knowledge itself tbh, and therefore we tend to act in that matter. IOW the problems concerning free will tend to epistemic in nature, and not really a question of physics, per se. None of this is to say that free will is not possible, however.

imo

[gregulus]

Well I'm not so sure about that one.

I would say that most people probably do not tend to exercise "free will" and act in a relatively mechanistic manner. I think the systemic limitation of free will usually springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of knowledge itself tbh, and therefore we tend to act in that matter. IOW the problems concerning free will tend to epistemic in nature, and not really a question of physics, per se. None of this is to say that free will is not possible, however.

imo

I said, "assuming that actions can be due to quantum mechanical properties". If actions are due (directly) to probabilistic quantum behavior, then free will cannot possibly exist. That would require the ability to control probabilistic quantum behavior, which is not possible. This, of course, rests on the assumption (made for the sake of conversation) that actions are due to quantum behavior.

The problems of free will may be, at least in some regards, related to physics, though. If one was to adopt a naturalist position (i.e. a position that the natural sciences and philosophy should not be treated with rigid separation, but rather that the sciences can provide very useful insight to the philosopher), physics may have certain implications for epistemology. Indeed, advances in things like neuroscience have greatly influenced modern epistemology.

The real problem that I have with saying that quantum behavior dictates human behavior is that quantum behavior ceases to manifest itself at any significant extent as you get to larger scales than the quantum. Even at the molecular level, I'm not sure what kind of relationship that has with the quantum universe. Surely things like molecular orbitals and other bonding properties are quantum mechanical, but that doesn't mean that the entire molecule adheres to quantum behavior. And, if molecules do (or even can) exhibit extensive quantum behavior, I'm not sure what kind of impact our biology would have on the randomness of it. Things like entanglement and decoherence might help to nullify such unpredictability. Of course, this is mere speculation. I have no idea what actually causes our actions.

Also, epistemology is awesome. I'm currently reading a few papers on Moorean facts in between reading things for work and watching MIT lectures on multivariable calculus and linear algebra.

[siva_chair]

I said, "assuming that actions can be due to quantum mechanical properties". If actions are due (solely) to probabilistic quantum behavior, then free will cannot possibly exist. That would require the ability to control probabilistic quantum behavior, which is not possible. This, of course, rests on the assumption (made for the sake of conversation) that actions are due to quantum behavior.

Fyp for sake of clarity. :chug:

It is quite possible that the act of will operates on an amalgamative level that transcends quantum behaviors in of themselves. I am under the impression that it is a mistake to think in terms of "will is solely a product of the behaviors of quantum mechanics" or "will is solely a product of the deterministic qualities of classical mechanics of the brain" etc.

The problems of free will may be, at least in some regards, related to physics, though. If one was to adopt a naturalist position (i.e. a position that the natural sciences and philosophy should not be treated with rigid separation, but rather that the sciences can provide very useful insight to the philosopher), physics may have certain implications for epistemology. Indeed, advances in things like neuroscience have greatly influenced modern epistemology.

Yes that is the key there: it may have implications for epistemology. It may provide certain contextual insights into the nature of the epistemology of the issue. But I think that the question of free will is primarily an epistemological question and not a mechanistic fact, if that makes sense.

The real problem that I have with saying that quantum behavior dictates human behavior is that quantum behavior ceases to manifest itself at any significant extent as you get to larger scales than the quantum. Even at the molecular level, I'm not sure what kind of relationship that has with the quantum universe. Surely things like molecular orbitals and other bonding properties are quantum mechanical, but that doesn't mean that the entire molecule adheres to quantum behavior. And, if molecules do (or even can) exhibit extensive quantum behavior, I'm not sure what kind of impact our biology would have on the randomness of it. Things like entanglement and decoherence might help to nullify such unpredictability. Of course, this is mere speculation. I have no idea what actually causes our actions.

Well we don't exactly know how distinct the two systems (for lack of a better terminology) of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics really are, that is the point. In short, we do not really know the effective extent that the quantum processes have on larger bodies.

Personally, I think the proposed 'holonomic brain theory' has a lot of potential in the field of neuroscience. If this happens to be the case, then the lines between the classical mechanical function of the brain and quantum functions of the brain are sort of interdependent when it comes to the process of mind. Thus you have a situation where the determinacy and indeterminacy of the two systems becomes essentially ambiguous in its implications to the epistemical nature of will.

Also, epistemology is awesome. I'm currently reading a few papers on Moorean facts in between reading things for work and watching MIT lectures on multivariable calculus and linear algebra.

Wow you are dedicated. It is hard for me to even want to actively seek out extensive lectures on multivariable calculus and linear algebra even though I have a passing interest in these things. I guess I am just too much of a degenerate gambler and would rather spend my time doing that and stuff. :chug:

[gregulus]

Fyp for sake of clarity. :chug:

It is quite possible that the act of will operates on an amalgamative level that transcends quantum behaviors in of themselves. I am under the impression that it is a mistake to think in terms of "will is solely a product of the behaviors of quantum mechanics" or "will is solely a product of the deterministic qualities of classical mechanics of the brain" etc.
I know it's a mistake. If there is anything modern science has taught us is that the universe is never as simple as we might like it to be. I was just addressing the post at hand in terms of what I thought was being argued.

Well we don't exactly know how distinct the two systems (for lack of a better terminology) of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics really are, that is the point. In short, we do not really know the effective extent that the quantum processes have on larger bodies.
Relatively recent research in quantum decoherence has provided very interesting insight into the connection between the quantum and classical universes. That's not to say it's solved the problem. It's just really cool.

If you're unaware of what this is, it is the idea that the wavefunction of a quantum object becomes entangled with the wavefunction of another object in its environment. This entanglement causes the interference of the quantum particles eigenstates that make up its superposition infinitesimal. In short, it generates apparent wavefunction collapse, and in that regard provides interesting implications for various interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's still not clear why the observed eigenvalue is observed as opposed to one of the other possible eigenvalues.

Wow you are dedicated. It is hard for me to even want to actively seek out extensive lectures on multivariable calculus and linear algebra even though I have a passing interest in these things. I guess I am just too much of a degenerate gambler and would rather spend my time doing that and stuff. :chug:
I find that stuff easier to understand in a lecture setting than simply reading a text book.

[siva_chair]

I know it's a mistake. If there is anything modern science has taught us is that the universe is never as simple as we might like it to be. I was just addressing the post at hand in terms of what I thought was being argued.

Well I know this I wasn't exactly arguing with you, just stating my position on the matter.


Relatively recent research in quantum decoherence has provided very interesting insight into the connection between the quantum and classical universes. That's not to say it's solved the problem. It's just really cool.

If you're unaware of what this is, it is the idea that the wavefunction of a quantum object becomes entangled with the wavefunction of another object in its environment. This entanglement causes the interference of the quantum particles eigenstates that make up its superposition infinitesimal. In short, it generates apparent wavefunction collapse, and in that regard provides interesting implications for various interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's still not clear why the observed eigenvalue is observed as opposed to one of the other possible eigenvalues.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

Great interview with one of quantum physics greatest minds imo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyX_vwjp5qs&feature=related

(Watch all 5 parts)

I find that stuff easier to understand in a lecture setting than simply reading a text book.

Well I'm the same way but I don't usually go much out of my way to study those things tbh. It is just a passive interest and that is all.

I'd rather study probability on the craps table, psychology and sociology on the poker table. :p

[Chris Is Gay]

Personally, I think the proposed 'holonomic brain theory' has a lot of potential in the field of neuroscience. If this happens to be the case, then the lines between the classical mechanical function of the brain and quantum functions of the brain are sort of interdependent when it comes to the process of mind. Thus you have a situation where the determinacy and indeterminacy of the two systems becomes essentially ambiguous in its implications to the epistemical nature of will.

It's baloney

There is no good reason to believe quantum effects play any role in neural computation

[Chris Is Gay]

Would they be us? human obviously, but would it matter to anything that they are different.

dont have a problem with anything but i don't a way you can humans dumb, shallow, greedy and irrational

when obviously we are the least dumb shallow greedy irrational people around you see

huh

[siva_chair]

It's baloney

There is no good reason to believe quantum effects play any role in neural computation

This is awesome you just disproved this whole theory simply by calling it baloney on an internet forum.

You are going to be a very accomplished intellectual someday with those kind of tactics. Gee whiz.

[sweboy]

What are some good reasons to believe that quantum effects play a role in neural computation?

[siva_chair]

Well, cognitive function can be explained as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns, for one.

Here is some more in-depth information on it if you are interested:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Holonomic_brain_theory

http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/#chap4

I suppose a more accurate way of putting this is that the mathematical descriptions that we make of single-cell processes and the branches from the single cells, and how they interact with each other both anatomically and functionally, yields a description that is very similar to the description of quantum events. We don't know that it's a function of the deeper quantum level in the brain, just that it behaves in a very similar matter to quantum processes.

[Chris Is Gay]

This is awesome you just disproved this whole theory simply by calling it baloney on an internet forum

I qualified my "baloney" assertion

There is no actual reason to believe quantum effects play any role in neural
computation

Quantum theory might offer some useful metaphors, for all I know, in the same way that spin glasses are a useful metaphor for building recurrent neural networks, but the only phenomena we can actually observe in the brain actually having a substantial effect are electrochemical

btw the quantum brain theory doesn't hold much more weight in the neuroscience community than creationism does in the biology community in general

[Chris Is Gay]

AI is already full of connectionist models that don't actually work anything like a brain or its constituents, it would be a pity to see proper neuroscience getting flooded with this junk lol

[siva_chair]

I qualified my "baloney" assertion

There is no actual reason to believe quantum effects play any role in neural
computation

Yeah we know you can repeat assertions like that.

You quoted one guy saying that it isn't taken serious by neuroscientists. That is great anecdotal evidence you got there.

Quantum theory might offer some useful metaphors, for all I know, in the same way that spin glasses are a useful metaphor for building recurrent neural networks, but the only phenomena we can actually observe in the brain actually having a substantial effect are electrochemical

Look I can post links that support the idea of quantum functions in the brain:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/decoherence.pdf

We also observe phenomena in the brain that cannot be adequately explained by electrochemical processes. Thus the entire reason for these proposed theories.

btw the quantum brain theory doesn't hold much more weight in the neuroscience community than creationism does in the biology community in general

Holonomic brain theory /= Penrose's model fwiw. Perhaps you should read what is posted.

Also the fact that the neuroscience community in general doesn't currently accept it doesn't really inherently indicate anything. Scientific paradigms have a tendency to shift, you know.

[Chris Is Gay]

Look I can post links that support the idea of quantum functions in the brain:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/decoherence.pdf

We also observe phenomena in the brain that cannot be adequately explained by electrochemical processes

Such as ... ?

Also the fact that the neuroscience community in general doesn't currently accept it doesn't really inherently indicate anything. Scientific paradigms have a tendency to shift, you know.

They tend not to shift towards superficially profound gobbledygook though

Jews did WTC btw

[siva_chair]

Such as ... ?

How networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior and cognition is still poorly understood within a biochemical framework, for one. You already knew that though, right, since you are an expert at this topic.

It doesn't really matter since you have already made up your mind on this issue. Carry on.

They tend not to shift towards superficially profound gobbledygook though

It is awesome that you just dismiss things you don't understand as "gobbledygook." You haven't really demonstrated anything to support this other than quoting some guy saying that Penrose's model isn't widely held by the community.

That is cool that you aren't really open to new ideas or perceptions, though. Hope that works out for you.

Jews did WTC btw

Ok? Good for them? :confused:

[Chris Is Gay]

How networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior and cognition is still poorly understood within a biochemical framework, for one

You are proposing something very like "the god of the gaps," except instead of God, quantum physics
Quantum theory doesn't solve the hard problem of consciousness any more than does classical physics, which explains the mechanics of mental processes just fine
There is no experimental evidence I know of that confirms the quantum brain theory, at least none which isn't hotly contested
Also I think you just want to cling to a quaint libertarian idea of free will
DA DERP DEE DERP DA TEETLEY DERPEE DERPEE DUMB

It is awesome that you just dismiss things you don't understand as "gobbledygook."

Do you understand it

You haven't really demonstrated anything to support this other than quoting some guy saying that Penrose's model isn't widely held by the community

It isn't

And the holonomic theory has a ghastly lack of parsimony

That is cool that you aren't really open to new ideas or perceptions, though. Hope that works out for you

I'm not open to ****

BAWWWWW

[Chris Is Gay]

apparently one of the strengths of your pet theory is that the conventional view of the brain doesn't explain how memory is distributed

um wat

[siva_chair]

[list] You are proposing something very like "the god of the gaps," except instead of God, quantum physics

No I'm not. In fact if you can be bothered to read, Pribram and co.'s model was arrived at independently from quantum processes. They didn't just take quantum ideas and see how they fit to the data we have on the brain, they gathered the data on the brain first and found that it fit the same mathematics.

Quantum theory doesn't solve the hard problem of consciousness any more than does classical physics, which explains the mechanics of mental processes just fine

Clearly it has problems with non-locality and such, but like I said it doesn't really matter because you have already made up your mind.

There is no experimental evidence I know of that confirms the quantum brain theory, at least none which isn't hotly contested

Oh so because you don't know of something and because something is, in your words, "hotly contested" it is invalid?

Also I think you just want to cling to a quaint libertarian idea of free will

No sorry try again.

Do you understand it

I understand it enough to see that it has potential, which is really all I ever claimed in the first place.

It isn't

Ok and?

It is amazing you can just make assertions like this and expect them to pass as reasonable arguments.

And the holonomic theory has a ghastly lack of parsimony

Ok now would be where you do more than assert things to back up your reasoning.

I'm not open to ****

And you complain about religion being close minded.....Wow.

[Chris Is Gay]

No I'm not. In fact if you can be bothered to read, Pribram and co.'s model was arrived at independently from quantum processes. They didn't just take quantum ideas and see how they fit to the data we have on the brain, they gathered the data on the brain first and found that it fit the same mathematics.

Link me again

Clearly it has problems with non-locality and such

No it doesn't

Even our crude ANNs don't have issues with non-locality

Their memories are also distributed evenly throughout the network in ways we can actually look at (I believe I mentioned analysis of a face analysis backprop network earlier in this thread), which you claimed was a huge obstacle for the conventional approach

Really it's not hard to figure out the concept of "distributed processing" without invoking elaborate quantum physics metaphors

DA DERPEE DERPEE DERP

Oh so because you don't know of something and because something is, in your words, "hotly contested" it is invalid?

If there are serious challenges to its credibility (see Tegmark) and the behavior it describes can also be interpreted with a more parsimonious theory hey yeah I might just not want to take stock in it

I understand it enough to see that it has potential, which is really all I ever claimed in the first place

Does it have any advantage over existing approaches

You haven't shown that at all

It is amazing you can just make assertions like this and expect them to pass as reasonable arguments

Well, the burden of proof is actually on you to show that either Penrose's theory or the holonomic theory aren't fringe ideas

Ok now would be where you do more than assert things to back up your reasoning

Do you know what parsimonious means

And you complain about religion being close minded.....Wow.

Yeah I'm not keen on fringe theories that needlessly complicate things BAWWWWW

[siva_chair]

Link me again

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Holonomic_brain_theory

http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/#chap4

http://twm.co.nz/pribram.htm

No it doesn't

Even our crude ANNs don't have issues with non-locality

Their memories are also distributed evenly throughout the network in ways we can actually look at (I believe I mentioned analysis of a face analysis backprop network earlier in this thread), which you claimed was a huge obstacle for the conventional approach

Really it's not hard to figure out the concept of "distributed processing" without invoking elaborate quantum physics metaphors

DA DERPEE DERPEE DERP

Pay particular close attention to the second link in the conclusions section above.

If there are serious challenges to its credibility (see Tegmark) and the behavior it describes can also be interpreted with a more parsimonious theory hey yeah I might just not want to take stock in it

It is cool you can use words like parsimonious, but you haven't really demonstrated any lack of parsimony.

Does it have any advantage over existing approaches

You haven't shown that at all

It sure does. It does a better job at accounting for subjectivity.

Also, see above links for more information. Particularly the second one.

Well, the burden of proof is actually on you to show that either Penrose's theory or the holonomic theory aren't fringe ideas

Um even if they were fringe ideas that doesn't inherently make them wrong.

And I posted links that you didn't seem to bother to read so....

Do you know what parsimonious means

Yes, I do. But you just made an assertion you didn't really back up with anything.

Yeah I'm not keen on fringe theories that needlessly complicate things

You don't even seem to even know anything about them other than some guy said they aren't accepted so you believe him.

BAWWWWW

Is your tard syndrome acting up again?

[Chris Is Gay]

You don't even seem to even know anything about them other than some guy said they aren't accepted so you believe him

I was going to write a longer reply, but the bottom line is this: the burden of proof is on you to show these ideas explain things better than the less complicated mechanisms currently in place

i.e., you'll have to do more than just shout "Non-locality!" and "Subjectivity!"

I read your second link and it says how holographs are a metaphor for the function of the visual cortex (and maybe the somatosensory cortex), how is this a model for the brain in general?

Is your tard syndrome acting up again?

Loaded question I don't have tard syndrome

[siva_chair]

I was going to write a longer reply, but the bottom line is this: the burden of proof is on you to show these ideas explain things better than the less complicated mechanisms currently in place

i.e., you'll have to do more than just shout "Non-locality!" and "Subjectivity!"

I read your second link and it says how holographs are a metaphor for the function of the visual cortex (and maybe the somatosensory cortex), how is this a model for the brain in general?

Bottom line is I have no desire to discuss this at great length with someone who is not open to any sort of ideas and has already made up their mind on the issue.

Also, read closer. The visual cortex was used as an example. Other sensory perceptions are stored/processed/encoded/etc in the same manner.

Also read the first link as well.

[Chris Is Gay]

How does your pet theory explain existing data better

[Chris Is Gay]

And don't just shout out various nouns

[siva_chair]

Both Pribram's theory and the more conventional theory have the brain divided up into various functioning communicating modules. One main difference is in how the information is stored in these brain modules. For example, in the case of vision, the conventional theory has specific features stored in certain dedicated cells. These different sub-modules then have parallel pathways to other modules that produce the combined visual experience. This would be somewhat analogous to a computer performing signal processing directly on an image. For example, dedicated circuitry for edge detection would interface with other circuitry for other features like color. Every feature of the image gets stored (or processed) in different dedicated "circuitry". These "circuits" then have parallel pathways to other brain regions in which the collective subjective experience of the perception is formed.
The holonomic theory (for the example of vision) summarizes evidence that the image formed on the retina is transformed to a holographic (or spectral) domain. The information in this spectral "holographic" domain is distributed over an area of the brain (a certain collection of cells) by the polarization of the various synaptic junctions in the dendritic structures. At this point, there is no longer a localized image stored in the brain. Correlations and associations can then be achieved by other parts of the brain projecting to these same cells. Conscious awareness (and memory) is the byproduct of the transformation back again from the spectral holonomic domain back to the "image" domain. Possibly the most radical part of the holonomic theory is Pribram's claim that a "receiver" is not necessary to "view" the result of the transformation (from spectral holographic to "image"). He claims that the process of transformation is what we "experience". Memory is a form of re-experiencing or re-constructing the initial sensory sensation.
Conventional neuro-physiology effectively pushes back the line between observer and what is observed (between subject and object). In signal processing, there always needs to be an end-user to view the processed or transformed signal. At best, conventional neuro-science leaves until later the ultimate explanation of the observer. Who would bet their grant money (career) on being able to answer this question in a couple of years? Aspects of Pribram's holonomic brain theory attempts to address this question.
The conventional view is that the brain is a computational device. There is a growing body of literature, though, that shows that there are severe limitations to computation (Penrose, 1994; Rosen, 1991; Kampis, 1991; Pattee, 1995). For instance, Penrose uses a variation of the "halting problem" to show that the mind cannot be an algorithmic process. Rosen argues that computation (or simulation) is an inaccurate representation of the natural causes that are in place in nature. Kampis shows that the informational content of an algorithmic process is fixed at the beginning and no "new" information can be brought forward. Pattee argues that the complete separation of initial conditions and equations of motion necessary in a computation may only be a special case in nature. Pattee argues that systems that can make their own measuring devices can affect what they see and have "semantic closure".
It is possible that the brain transcends computational behavior. If this is the case, then it will be very interesting to see what aspects of Pribram's holonomic theory are in collaboration with these non-computable ideas.

[Chris Is Gay]

can you put it in your own words siva_penis

you seem to understand this stuff no better than I do, which is the problem: it's obscurantist drivel

and none of the stuff your mined quote says sounds very radical, it's just dressed up differently

e.g.,

"Memory is a form of re-experiencing or re-constructing the initial sensory sensation."

DA DERPEE DERPEE DERP that's well known

also this is specific to the visual cortex, it says nothing whatever of the other parts of the neocortex to say nothing of, say, the hippocampus

you keep giving me "oh ya but it applies to other parts of the brain 2" without showing how ... all I've seen so far is a blurb in one of the articles you posted "btw this also applies to the somatosensory cortex in rats"

also no one who matters takes Penrose's criticisms seriously

I already linked you to an essay that explains why but I guess you ignored it

trying again

http://books.google.com/books?id=9JGOmd66jGsC&lpg=PA205&dq=penrose%20churchland&client=firefox-a&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[gregulus]

I can't get into Bohmian interpretations of QM. Bell's theorem disproved local hidden variables, so the Bohmian screams "Ah, yes! That means that there are non-local hidden variables!" Interesting research has been published describing experimental data in which even (many) non-local hidden variables appear to be an impossibility.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html

I also take issue with the fundamental idea of the Bohmian interpretation that not only is the quantum particle real (a position that I whole-heartedly accept) but also that the wave function is also a real thing. I cannot explicitly posit that the wave function is in fact not real, but I'm certainly not willing to make the assumption that it is.

[siva_chair]

can you put it in your own words siva_penis

I don't see why I need to when that puts it better than I ever could.

you seem to understand this stuff no better than I do, which is the problem: it's obscurantist drivel

Lol so because I link you to an acedemic paper that you don't understand, you simply dismiss it as drivel. The fact is, I couldn't put it in an any less confusing matter. You shouldn't confuse this with me not understanding it. You just seem to be upset that you can't really formulate any sort of silly soundbite against any of this data so you revert back to your lame attempts to try and fit you dick obsession into every post.

and none of the stuff your mined quote says sounds very radical, it's just dressed up differently

Then you obviously didn't read it. Or at least didn't understand it. It is radically because it is a fundamentally different way of viewing the brain. If you can't tell that, then you probably don't even understand the conventional view very well either.


e.g.,

"Memory is a form of re-experiencing or re-constructing the initial sensory sensation."

DA DERPEE DERPEE DERP that's well known

Lol really? You forgot the part just before that:

Possibly the most radical part of the holonomic theory is Pribram's claim that a "receiver" is not necessary to "view" the result of the transformation (from spectral holographic to "image"). He claims that the process of transformation is what we "experience".

In case you didn't get it, the brain is not simply a computational device recollecting data, but it is an active, living, process.

Karl Pribram's holonomic theory reviews evidence that the dendritic processes function to take a "spectral" transformation of the "episodes of perception". This transformed "spectral" information is stored distributed over large numbers of neurons. When the episode is remembered, an inverse transformation occurs that is also a result of dendritic processes. It is the process of transformation that gives us conscious awareness.

also this is specific to the visual cortex, it says nothing whatever of the other parts of the neocortex to say nothing of, say, the hippocampus

It is specific to the visual cortex because visual memory is what they using as an example.

Particular emphasis will be placed on the visual system since its the best characterized in the neurosciences.

you keep giving me "oh ya but it applies to other parts of the brain 2" without showing how ... all I've seen so far is a blurb in one of the articles you posted "btw this also applies to the somatosensory cortex in rats"

You still haven't learned to read, or didn't bother to read any of the other links I posted:

Processing the vibratory sensory inputs in audition and in tactile sensation proceeds somewhat similarly.

also no one who matters takes Penrose's criticisms seriously

I already linked you to an essay that explains why but I guess you ignored it

trying again

http://books.google.com/books?id=9JGOmd66jGsC&lpg=PA205&dq=penrose%20churchland&client=firefox-a&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Now you are just being dishonest. I don't see where you ever posted that. The only link you posted concerning this subject was this:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/39671

Which was just some guy stating that "no one takes the criticisms seriously."

But that was a good job trying to ignore the purpose of the quote and trying to turn this into a discussion of Penrose.

[Chris Is Gay]

Lol so because I link you to an acedemic paper that you don't understand, you simply dismiss it as drivel

I'm not understanding the paper in the sense that I'm not understanding how there are clothes on a naked emperor

In case you didn't get it, the brain is not simply a computational device recollecting data, but it is an active, living, process

It's both

It's a living computer

Why are these mutually exclusive

Karl Pribram's holonomic theory reviews evidence that the dendritic processes function to take a "spectral" transformation of the "episodes of perception". This transformed "spectral" information is stored distributed over large numbers of neurons. When the episode is remembered, an inverse transformation occurs that is also a result of dendritic processes. It is the process of transformation that gives us conscious awareness.

This sounds like neural recurrence described in vague and confusing, almost mystical language

Processing the vibratory sensory inputs in audition and in tactile sensation proceeds somewhat similarly.

Wow I'm just supposed to take that at Pribram's say-so without any evidence from him or review from anyone else

Check it out

"Processing in the hippocampus proceeds somewhat similarly."

Hey I just contributed to his research, give me a grant!

Now you are just being dishonest

My bad, I thought I had posted it earlier

[Chris Is Gay]

also, siva_penis why do you cling to theories that are supported by only a handful of researchers for very good reasons and then defend them til the cows come home to the aggravation of everyone

[siva_chair]

I can't get into Bohmian interpretations of QM. Bell's theorem disproved local hidden variables, so the Bohmian screams "Ah, yes! That means that there are non-local hidden variables!" Interesting research has been published describing experimental data in which even (many) non-local hidden variables appear to be an impossibility.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html

Can't read the article.

I also take issue with the fundamental idea of the Bohmian interpretation that not only is the quantum particle real (a position that I whole-heartedly accept) but also that the wave function is also a real thing. I cannot explicitly posit that the wave function is in fact not real, but I'm certainly not willing to make the assumption that it is.

Well, Bohm treats the wave function as a complex-valued but real field.

The particles are guided by the wave function, which follows the Schrödinger equation.

[siva_chair]

I'm not understanding the paper in the sense that I'm not understanding how there are clothes on a naked emperor

That's Penrose's work. I am talking about Pribram's work.

It's both

It's a living computer

Why are these mutually exclusive

You aren't understanding this. There is nothing I can do to help you with this.

This sounds like neural recurrence described in vague and confusing, almost mystical language

I don't see how it is my fault you can't understand this. There is nothing mystical about this.

Wow I'm just supposed to take that at Pribram's say-so without any evidence from him or review from anyone else

Check it out

"Processing in the hippocampus proceeds somewhat similarly."

Hey I just contributed to his research, give me a grant!

He covers it in his books.

Also, I believe he mentions the auditory system it in this article:

http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/pribram01.php

also, siva_penis why do you cling to theories that are supported by only a handful of researchers for very good reasons and then defend them til the cows come home to the aggravation of everyone

1) Because from what I have researched, these models make the most sense and explain things more adequately than other models to me. I'm certainly no expert, and have never claimed to be, but I know what makes sense to me.

2) Aggravating you is very fun because you are so full of yourself and seem to think you know everything about any subject you gain any interest in.

[gregulus]

Can't read the article.
You can read the abstract.


Well, Bohm treats the wave function as a complex-valued but real field.

The particles are guided by the wave function, which follows the Schrödinger equation.

I know. That still implies that the wave function is a real thing that the particles actually follow.

[Danish]

You guys are totally nerding out!

[siva_chair]

You can read the abstract.

Which doesn't really tell me a whole lot tbh.


I know. That still implies that the wave function is a real thing that the particles actually follow.

Umm what exactly makes you think it isn't?

[1338 h4x0r]

That's Penrose's work. I am talking about Pribram's work.

I'm applying the emperor is naked metaphor to him too

You aren't understanding this. There is nothing I can do to help you with this.

Hay siva

WHAT IS INCOHERENT ABOUT THE IDEA OF A LIVING COMPUTER

I don't see how it is my fault you can't understand this. There is nothing mystical about this

No but there's everything foggy about it


Also, I believe he mentions the auditory system it in this article:

http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/pribram01.php

Great he discusses the auditory system in vague language, now there's the rest of the brain to concern himself with

1) Because from what I have researched, these models make the most sense and explain things more adequately than other models to me. I'm certainly no expert, and have never claimed to be, but I know what makes sense to me.

Oh because a fringe idea makes the most personal sense to you that means it's right

(Hence Austrian economics)

Never mind that nothing, NOTHING you have brought up in favor of your pet theory can't be explained by conventional models

See Pribram talking here:

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/univch5.htm

The following properties of holograms are important for brain function: (1) the distribution and parallel content-addressable processing of information — a characteristic that can account for the failure of brain lesions to eradicate any specific memory trace (or engram); (2) the tremendous storage capacity of the holographic domain and the ease with which information can be retrieved (the entire contents of the Library of Congress can currently be stored on holofische, or microfilm recorded in holographic form, taking up no more space than is contained in an attache case); (3) the capacity for associative recall that is inherent in the parallel distributed processing of holograms because of the coupling of separate inputs; and (4) the provision by this coupling of a powerful technique for correlating (cross-correlations and autocorrelations are accomplished almost instantaneously).

It's called "swarm intelligence" and requires holography no more than the behavior of an ant colony does
Having trillions of synapses doesn't require you to invoke holography either
Autoassociative recall is explained adequately by connectionism
Gobbledygook, don't even know what this means

2) Aggravating you is very fun because you are so full of yourself and seem to think you know everything about any subject you gain any interest in.

Same can be said of you

Remember when you tried to use probability theory to shed doubt on abiogenesis?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And now you're clinging to an outdated view of QM here

No I don't think I know everything about these topics; I just know more than you, you arrogant little prick

[siva_chair]

I'm applying the emperor is naked metaphor to him too

And it is a retarded metaphor.

Hay siva

WHAT IS INCOHERENT ABOUT THE IDEA OF A LIVING COMPUTER

Hay Chris

LOTS OF THINGS IF IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN OBSERVED PHENOMENON ADEQUATELY

No but there's everything foggy about it

The fog is a product of your ignorance.

Great he discusses the auditory system in vague language, now there's the rest of the brain to concern himself with

Great, he covers that in several of his books and lectures maybe you should read them sometime.

On second thought, don't. Wouldn't want your fog to confuse you more.

Oh because a fringe idea makes the most personal sense to you that means it's right

Awesome, because that is totally what I said.

It saddens me that there are people going to degree granting institutions in this country that lack reading comprehension skills like this.

(Hence Austrian economics)

Funny because you have yet to invalidate any principles of Austrian economics, and when you attempt to, you end up just showing that you are ignorant on the school.

Never mind that nothing, NOTHING you have brought up in favor of your pet theory can't be explained by conventional models

See Pribram talking here:

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/univch5.htm

The following properties of holograms are important for brain function: (1) the distribution and parallel content-addressable processing of information — a characteristic that can account for the failure of brain lesions to eradicate any specific memory trace (or engram); (2) the tremendous storage capacity of the holographic domain and the ease with which information can be retrieved (the entire contents of the Library of Congress can currently be stored on holofische, or microfilm recorded in holographic form, taking up no more space than is contained in an attache case); (3) the capacity for associative recall that is inherent in the parallel distributed processing of holograms because of the coupling of separate inputs; and (4) the provision by this coupling of a powerful technique for correlating (cross-correlations and autocorrelations are accomplished almost instantaneously).

It's called "swarm intelligence" and requires holography no more than the behavior of an ant colony does
Having trillions of synapses doesn't require you to invoke holography either
Autoassociative recall is explained adequately by connectionism
Gobbledygook, don't even know what this means

Well gee it looks like you just have it all figured out. I mean you just read little snippets of the model and you already fully understand it and its implications (that fog must have went away for you to accomplish such a feat). You should write Pribram this and tell him of your concerns I'm sure he will be thankful of your thoughtful sound bite of a critique. We clearly have the brain and its functions all figured out and someone should tell him this. I just can't think of a more qualified person than you.

Same can be said of you

Difference being I don't resort to lashing out with a constant stream of butthurt attempts at insults to try and make myself feel better when I respond to posts.

Remember when you tried to use probability theory to shed doubt on abiogenesis?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is an oversimplification of what the discussion was about to say the least, but keep trying.

And now you're clinging to an outdated view of QM here

Not at all.

*Waits for explanation of how it is outdated.*

No I don't think I know everything about these topics; I just know more than you, you arrogant little prick

Lol you actually have convinced yourself that I am the arrogant one here? Omg....

[1338 h4x0r]

And it is a retarded metaphor

Hey, so is brain holography

Hay Chris

LOTS OF THINGS IF IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN OBSERVED PHENOMENON ADEQUATELY

Observed phenomena

Such as?

The fog is a product of your ignorance.

I guess the vast majority of brain scientists are ignorant too

It sure would be great to be His Majesty the King Siva I for a day