Another boring, batshitcrazy maths thing (with no equations)

While I understand your argument, I still don't believe it carries as much weight as you have given it. Also, I believe that since everything can be described with increasing accuracy, mathematically, eventually your objection will become irrelevant. When we consider the problems you refer to, we can see that they are merely practical ones which, in no way, removes from the absolute and abstract concept of the idea. For example, when we use maths to deduce areas and volumes, the measurements of the shapes we take are never absolutely accurate; but this does not affect the concept of area or volume deduction; which is obvious when you consider the formulae for 'ideal' or general shapes.

Intuitively, we can see that while 2πr gives the circumference of a circle, the fact that no perfect circle exists, as well as our inability to measure r, will hinder our ability to calculate the circumference; however, these difficulties are merely practical, and no-one would argue that the equation is inaccurate on their account, which I see that you actually agree with.

This is exactly what I'm trying to argue. Rather than dealing with the impracticality of the thing, I prefer to suppose that the concepts I mention are possibly true, and are dictated by natural law. Though I think that this law may exist, I acknowledge that it may never be used practically; though I have argued the case, because I do not feel it impossible.

By 'actively disagreeing', I meant that you were the only one currently endeavoring to argue your point.

 

I actively disagree. You're not just speculating, you're making assumptions and then leaping to some absurd conclusions.

Wisconsin Institute can kiss my arse; the brain patterns that are "linked to" awareness do NOT "explain" it. This is not "confirmed" as consciousness, and it sure as hell doesn't provide "an entirely scientific explanation for the human soul".

Therefore, you say, we can treat these connections as consciousness and any other definition of consciousness as meaningless.

Ok, so that's your premise, a priori, well its nonsense.

But, even if it were true, the next step in your logic, that our choices are limited by our brain chemistry, has some major flaws. Basically, CHAOS.

It's not the limits of our science, or data, it's the fabric of reality, part of the maths of the cosmos.
You. Can. Not. Predetermine. Complex. Systems.

It. Is. Impossible.

 

It's very interesting to speculate on the impossible, however. I thoroughly enjoy the "possibility" of obtaining the mind of god, though you'd need a machine greater than man to produce it. And if this machine is greater than man, what prevents it from destroying us with the information? If we already know the future, what truly separates it from the past? It would be as if we were simply waiting for our lives to be over, because we already knew how our lives would pan out. I do not enjoy having my consciousness shattered by some predetermining god machine.

 

Alright, fair enough. There's nothing wrong with playing the "what if..." game. Excuse my vehemence in my last post, but I do feel strongly opposed to both scientific reductionism in general and behavioural psychology in particular.

Just out of curiosity, what has everyone here studied? I spent ten years at college changing my mind every six months and doing new introductory courses every semester until finally dropping out for good.

I did everything I could think of except:- Economics, Accounting and Law (ie, the Dark Arts).

 

What have I studied ytzk? At University? Nothing, I can't afford to go for various reasons but I do have a keen interest in I.T (as you're probably well aware by now) with a more than passing interest in maths/science & a couple of other fields, namely history and mechanical engineering. That's not particularly interesting to you or anyone else, but you did ask.

wayne-scales, you might want to drop the prep-boy attitude - it's very hard for anyone to have a debate with someone who makes plenty of assumptions without backing them up, claims practicality is unimportant (this is a 'real world' we live in, or am I just thinking that?) but most importantly shows complete disregard for anothers opinion, giving it no credit and refusing to even adapt their own strategy to counteract an argument.

You will never, ever reliably predict a brain simply because it's too complex. You yourself said that even current mathematical equations compromise accuracy for practicality - with the smaller examples you provided it's not so crucial as the precision is still good enough to be of use, but with a complex system such as a neural network or even a game of billiards the [small] errors in your mathematical model will compound and have a very significant effect on the results. Even if you can reliably predict every particle in the brain and reliably predict uncertainty you will end up with an inaccurate prediction purely because of practicality.

Fuck, even if you're good enough to work out a 100% accurate equation the computer system needed to calculate it are still going to have the aforementioned precision issues which will still leave you wrong let's say, oh, 80%+ of the time. So, providing all your assumptions about the human consciousness are correct (and I'm not saying that they are), then yes, it is theoretically possible but good luck actually doing it in the real world

 

If you'd read the posts instead of just breezing through them and then replying with this whole 'holier-than-thou' attitude, you might not have wasted your time simply reiterating pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

No, you said that practicality is 'not important' and that you wanted to 'discuss the theoretical concept'.

I then said 'practicality is important, for x, y and z reasons'

That doesn't sound anything like what you've been saying, I wasn't being 'holier-than-though' either, thanks. You are coming across as pretty naive, constantly rebuking anyone who even attempts to try and discuss the idea with you which sort of defeats the purpose of even posting it here, but whatever.

In any case, I've said my bit - do with it what you will, which is probably nothing.

 

Practicality is not important in the sense where we're content to know that things are based on a general principle and confined to that law, and cannot act randomly. While consciousness appears random, it has been speculated (and I think that most, if not all, of my mentionings of this hypothesis has been accompanied with "if this were true" or some variant) that it, too, is governed naturally; and so free will may not, or, in this case, cannot, exist.

While practicality dictates that we can, perhaps, never apply this law to worldly use, the mere existence of the principle necessitates that events are pre-determined; and this, I am satisfied with, were it to prove true.

If it's hard to argue with someone who won't take other opinions into account, it's even harder to argue with someone who, instead of being sympathetic to the intent, merely echoes acknowledged and, in this specific case, largely irrelevant, except by out-of-the-way association, objections.

 

I agree that consciousness follows natural law, WS.
What I disagree with is which laws you say it follows.

 

Any law I say that consciousness follows is only the hypothesis of third-party organizations. I don't know which law consciousness follows, nor have I ever claimed, except, maybe, by omission of saying so, that I do know.

 

And the sanskrit poem I quoted is the hypothesis of a third party which I offer as counter-argument.

It includes instructions for a practical experiment on one's own consciousness.

 

I don't think you can use consciousness to test consciousness.

 

Einstein was autistic. And if you're so sure, why not try it?

 

Ad hominem

Because if you're mind can trick you into thinking you have free will, when you might not, along with plenty of other things, like the placebo effect, performing an a priori experiment with it can lead to further tricks.

 

Okay, so you can't trust your own mind, and therefore you won't even examine it, in case you trick yourself.

Good luck with that.

 

Do you use maths to prove maths?

 

Since you asked, ytzk, I'm studying biotechnology.

 

A twenty-two twaddly twisted twin-twats twitted twice on twatter after two twee twilight twitterations twiddled twelve times on twelfth twinkle.

Got it probably wrong, but this formula should solve any of your problems.

 

I'm reading geology. Maybe not as fancy-pancy as biotechnology, but still pretty interesting.