Another boring, batshitcrazy maths thing (with no equations)

Another, hopefully, thought-provoking idea which is even more insane than the last one! Again, make sure to point out wherever I've missed a fallacy. Also, if I've made myself unclear with clumsy writing, know what I meant to say from the context and don't attack what I've actually missaid.

Consciousness has been linked to/explained by the connections made in the brain which, when triggered, predict that I am in a waking state. When we are awake, stimulation in one area of the brain produces a reaction in both that part and in other parts of the brain that are 'consciously' linked to the prior part, while this does not happen when we are asleep. Research in the Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute and Clinics confirm this as our 'consciousness', and, thereby, have produced an entirely scientific explanation of the 'soul'.

Consciousness, then, as the established, intuitive concept, is naught but an illusion; and, if the phenomenon of being conscious can be defined thus, we may be able to predict the reaction of the Self under certain stimuli, thereby disillusioning us, or, at least, calling into question, the notion of free will, as choices we make may be confined to, and determined by, our brain chemistry, and can either confine a decision to a handful of choices, or, quite possibly and perhaps even more likely, a single inevitable 'choice'.

Taking this as a premise, a priori, we may apply the concept to the idea of multidimensional spacetime. Regarding the choice of a three-dimensional act in four dimensional spacetime, one may suggest that, just as events can be predicted along a one-, two-, or three-dimsensional space, events can be predicted in the temporal, fourth dimension. When considering the problem of the dimension of time, we may argue that free will dictates that this dimension cannot be described by an equation which predicts periodic results, as can any of the three spacial dimensions which we observe day-to-day. Certain events can be anticipated with absolute certainty when defined spacially; but, as the human mind appears not to immutably adhere to mathematical pattern, events of the future cannot be predicted and past events seem contingent.

If consciousness emerges merely from neurochemistry and connections in the brain, it may be possible to explain these decision-making processes theoretically, and predict how a certain person will act under certain conditions. Were this to prove true, we may, hypothetically, be able to derive the acts of all human beings at any time under one single equation that predicts the future, explains the past, and elucidates the present.

Further, when we see that no spacial dimension becomes another (i.e. in three dimensions, a strictly one dimensional vector does not curve into a second spacial dimension) we see that, were events predictable, it would explain the rather thorny problem of future contingencies, and which dimension they lie in (the fourth or the fifth - or, more accurately, 'ours' or another), as the events are predictable and must occur in their own dimension.

 

It's currently impossible to predict the behaviour of snooker balls after three collisions, and you think we can model a brain right down to what I'll have for breakfast in twenty years time?

Mathematically, any computer can model any other computer of lesser capacity, so first you need a super-duper-computer more powerful than a brain.

Then you need to measure every particle bouncing around in there, including photons hitting the eyes and variations within the genes and growth of the brain. Oh, except you can't measure that accurately, because of the uncertainty principle, which means that from the first instant the model is going to be inaccurate.

I think the mystery of my consciousness is safe from the Wisconsin Institute for the time being.

 

I don't suppose anyone has that unique formula but a creator at this moment. I don't think that we could figure it out by studying for statistics of behaviors. With a computer superior to a brain we might be able to figure it out, but it's true, with quantum uncertainties there's no way to determine where anything is and if that motion imparts what is known as consciousness.
But you're saying that people, like lesser animals can be studied and pretedermined? I like the concept.

 

My consciousness is naught but an illusion? You mean it's all in my head? I think that I am thinking but actually I only think that I'm thinking that I'm thinking?

Oh no! *Disintegrates in a puff of logic*

 

You can map neural processes all you wish, however it will only be able to replicate a particular response, not predict it. This is because an individual aware of this type of experiment or equation can make a conscious choice to thwart it, rendering your prediction useless.

This seems to fall more under the study of neurobiology rather than any particular mathematical discipline.

 

Awh man... In all my going on about maths all the time, you'd think that I wouldn't keep accidentally putting that little line through the equals symbol in difficult=impossible! How did I forget that? I must, also, have forgotten to read my own post correctly, because I think the whole point was that it was conceptually possible; not that it should, would, or could be done. And awh man, I just realized that you're right, and quantum uncertainty not only knocks the whole idea on its ass, because, as we know, we never ever even imagine trying anything which contains uncertainty (that's why we threw quantum mechanics out the window along with pretty much ever other branch of science), but I seem to have again forgotten that the point was that, information difficulties aside, it could be done in the same way that something has a velocity that we can't accurately measure.

The first paragraph is just wrong, and I'm sure it won't take anyone five seconds to figure out why.

Neurobiology? I didn't realize that this was a scientific discipline without maths! Cause, see, I was thinking that when the idea was related to maths (especially as centrally as this idea was) it made it a mathematical idea, no matter what else it was connected to. By the same principle, neurobiology can be thought of as a mathematical science just like pretty much all the others; and if it can't, I'm not sure how they're gonna come up with an equation, or even how I managed to squeeze the idea of an equation into an essentially non-mathematical idea!

 

I disagree with all of your premises, but I acknowledge that your logic is sound.

 

So, wayne-scales, what you're saying is that if it would be possible to predict things which are impossible to predict, it would be possible to predict any and all things.

Pretty much true, like many other things which would be possible if impossible things were possible.

 

Nope! Are you saying that it's impossible to predict things that might be possible to predict? So if it's impossible to predict the predictable, the predictable becomes the unpredictable and so all things that can be predicted are the unpredictable which shows that anything that can be anticipated is unpredictable insofar as it can be predicted? Yes, let's all used flawed logic! As long as it's slightly complicated, it's gotta prove the other guy wrong!

 

It's impossible to predetermine consciousness.

Not difficult, not improbable, not might be possible, impossible.

 

All I'm saying is that I would like to see a device capable of faultlessly predicting the behaviour of every single particle in existence, including the particles from which it is built, seeing how that's the very least that would be required to even start.

 

Such a device would be indistinguishable from the actual universe it models... Hey, I found one!

 

Clearly neither of you understand, or even want to understand, the concept. I don't even feel that I need to argue with a misinterpretation, because I wouldn't actually be arguing for what you're not arguing against.

 

Then again, it might be you who does not understand the other debaters.

 

I find it hard to believe that, were you actually understanding the implications, you'd choose to use an irrelevant argument which fabricates its own opposition. Ever hear of the straw man?

 

Meh, I follow your arguement, dude.

I'd like to see an N-dimensional map of brain-chemistry versus behaviour versus conscious-choice.

Hell, maybe in a thousand years we could refine the science down to predicting my breakfast in 20 years, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

What if the other debaters understand the implications more than you do and therefore answer to arguments which you do not recognise as relevant?

 

Go on then; impress me.

The fact that most everything has been answered, and that it seems conceivable, leads me to believe that the only thing you have to argue is scruples. Were I to have misunderstood everyone, it seems unlikely that I would not have been met with such a response to my replies; and, as you are currently the only one actively disagreeing, it seems that you're current argument is based on the idea that I don't understand what I'm saying myself while you do. This being your position, I could simply apply that argument one step further, and so on ad infinitum.

 

Absorption in the heart of being whence we sprang
Is the path of action, devotion, union and knowledge.

Holding the breath controls the mind, a bird caught in a net.
Breath regulation helps absorption in the heart of being.

Mind and breath, as thought and action, fork out like two branches
But both spring from a single root.

Absorption is of two kinds, submergence and destruction.
Mind submerged rises again; dead, it revives no more.

Breath controlled and thought restrained
The mind, turned inward, fades and dies.

Mind extinct, the mighty seer returns to his own natural being
And has no action to perform.

It is true wisdom for the mind to turn away from outer objects
And behold its own effulgent form.

When unceasingly the mind scans its own form, there is nothing of the kind.
For everyone this direct path is always open.

Thoughts alone make up the mind and of all thought, the "I" thought is the root.
What is called mind is but the notion "I".

When one turns within and searches whence this "I" thought arises,
The shamed "I" vanishes and wisdom's quest begins.

Where this "I" notion has faded, now there as I, as I, arises
The One, the very Self, the Infinite.

To know the Self is to be the Self for it is non-dual,
In such knowledge one abides as That.

It is true knowledge which transcends both knowledge and ignorance
For in pure knowledge there is no object to be known.

Having known one's nature one abide as being with no beginning and no end.
In unbroken consciousness and bliss.

 

As far as I could observe, everyone called what you had in mind impossible in one way or another.

I myself actually agree with your main point. I agree that no randomness in physics => no randomness on the submolecular and molecular level => no randomness on the grander scale. Therefore it could indeed be said that there is no free will and that given enough data, we would be able to predict anything and everything. What I pointed out, though, is that we will never have that "enough data" which would be required.

Why? Because in order to predict the future, we would not only have to predict every single process happening in human brains but also predict the environment in which the decisions will be made, seeing how it affects those very decisions.

Since - according to quantum physics - a particle from one side of the universe can affect a particle on the other side of the universe, the environment which would have to be predicted equals the universe, or even more (if we assume there are parallel universes which affect each other and so on). Therefore, in order to predict any given event from the future, we would need...

= something which I don't see happening