Jump to content


Photo

Is The Cell Intelligent?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 June 2017 - 07:13 AM

[b][size=5]Your logic is failing you in that you fail to acknowledge that code is made of matter and you will not recoord information either way. Braile is often used as code. It's "touch" code. But it's still code.

i disagree that "code is matter".
binary code is a method of representing a group of binary digits.
this same group of digits can be represented by any number of "codes".

code is not matter, but a method.
this applies to any code i can think of.

#62 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 28 June 2017 - 01:13 PM

 

I'll ask my questions again. Which of these three sentences do you agree with, if any:

1) It is impossible in principle to measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain
2) If we had a tool that could measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain, and we used to to measure my brain activity as I read a text to myself, it would be impossible to deduce the text from the measurements.
3) If we had such a tool then it might be possible to deduce the text from the measurements, but the measurements nevertheless aren't measurements of the actual thoughts I had.


We don't! And we do. We are aware of what we are thinkikng. We just don't find any physics to it! Perhaps you could "create" a tool to do it! LOL

 

 

 

I'm referring to tools that could measure the activity of all neurons in a human brain. Thoughts don't do that, and I find it weird that you would equate thoughts with such a measuring tool when you clearly believe that thoughts aren't types of physical brain activity.

 

The reason I asked for your take on those three positions is because (2) is the only way your example could demonstrate that thoughts aren't physical. (1) and (3) are the only ways it could avoid demonstrating that they are. If you don't endorse any of those sentences then your example cannot in principle demonstrate that thoughts aren't physical.

Regardless of what it can demonstrate in principle, your example as stated definitely doesn't demonstrate thoughts aren't physical; if an experiment gives the same result when something is physical (like sign language) as when it isn't, then the results of the experiment cannot prove that something isn't physical.
 

Your logic is failing you in that you fail to acknowledge that code is made of matter and you will not recoord information either way.


Why would I acknowledge something that you haven't yet demonstrated is true?
 

Code and information are to different things. My experiment proved that information has no physics thatrt we know of!


As I've shown, your example proves no such thing. Every argument you've made so far trying to show it does starts from the premise that information isn't physical, which is assuming your own conclusion.
 

It's not the tool is imperfect for what it is designed to do. It's just that it has a mission that it can't achieve.


I'm curious, do you think it is false that neurologists have managed to differentiate vowels from consonants from electrocorticography brain scans?
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3772685/

Do you think it's impossible in principle to do what these people claim to have done?
 



#63 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 June 2017 - 04:52 PM

Aelyn said:

 
I'm referring to tools that could measure the activity of all neurons in a human brain. Thoughts don't do that, and I find it weird that you would equate thoughts with such a measuring tool when you clearly believe that thoughts aren't types of physical brain activity.
 
The reason I asked for your take on those three positions is because (2) is the only way your example could demonstrate that thoughts aren't physical. (1) and (3) are the only ways it could avoid demonstrating that they are. If you don't endorse any of those sentences then your example cannot in principle demonstrate that thoughts aren't physical.

Regardless of what it can demonstrate in principle, your example as stated definitely doesn't demonstrate thoughts aren't
physical;


Nor does it demonstrate that thoughts are physical.

Your bias allows you to asssume that thougfhts are indeed physical with no present evidence (their physics).

if an experiment gives the same result when something is physical (like sign language) as when it isn't, then the results of the experiment cannot prove that something isn't physical.
 
But the experiment does not give the same results. If you point a video camer at a person doing sign language you will get a video of a person doing sign language not the persons thoughts.

Your logic is failing you in that you fail to acknowledge that code is made of matter and information has no known physics. You are looking at code on your computer screen. Light and dark symbols (code) have measurements (physics). I want you to give me the physics of informationm. This is science not speculation! You have yet to give me one iota of evidence that information has physics. None!

The experiment was to show that we can't record a persons thoughts
Why would I acknowledge something that you haven't yet demonstrated is true?
 

Code and information are two different things. My experiment proved that information has no physics that  we know of!

As I've shown, your example proves no such thing. Every argument you've made so far trying to show it does starts from the premise that information isn't physical, which is assuming your own conclusion.

It's not the tool is imperfect for what it is designed to do. It's just that it has a mission that it can't achieve.

I'm curious, do you think it is false that neurologists have managed to differentiate vowels from consonants from electrocorticography brain scans?
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3772685/

Do you think it's impossible in principle to do what these people claim to have done?

I guess your creativity is more powerful than my version of the truth. You can tell yourself anythig you wannt. Evolution is true because you want it to be true.
As a therapoist I can tell you truth is a dubious concept when it comes to the human mind.
 
 

#64 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 June 2017 - 05:28 AM

Aelyn,

Here is the hyppocracy of your position: You are not quite as objective as you probably think you are.

You claim you allege atheism (there is no God) because you can detect no physics to God. We argue that God is life, God is a spirit (mental) but has no physics.

Yet you claim to believe in information (with no detectible physics). When I ask you for the physics of information you find none, give no evidence of any but, nevertheless accept (vy faith?) that information does exist.
You seem to believe it exists even though you can detect no physics

The order of code strongly infers a mental state to cause materialistic complexity. "Who" put the code on your screen in specific order so that you can "read" it? Remeber as a child learning to do that?

I do the same thing you do with code.     
"Oh there must be a Mike to put the code I see on my screen in specific order so that it matches the same meaning) I have pewciously associated to that specific code. Don't you think you are being a little hypocritical "not" believing in God but "believing" in information? Looks like a double standard to me.



#65 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 July 2017 - 05:39 AM

Regardless of what it can demonstrate in principle, your example as stated definitely doesn't demonstrate thoughts aren't
physical;

Nor does it demonstrate that thoughts are physical.


I would be worried if it did, given it's an example you provided to support your claim that information (which you claim thoughts are) isn't physical.

When you provide examples to support your position, the fact that they don't demonstrate the opposite position is really a bare minimum to hope for. But they do need to demonstrate the position they're being given as a demonstration for.
 

if an experiment gives the same result when something is physical (like sign language) as when it isn't, then the results of the experiment cannot prove that something isn't physical.

But the experiment does not give the same results.


You missed the "as stated" qualifier. There are two ways of seeing your experiment: taking it literally as you described it (audio recorder included), and extending it to include any measuring device. I addressed both aspects in my reply; the two first paragraphs looked at the generalised experiment with any measuring device, and the last paragraph, that referred to "your example as stated" was a side-note about the former.
 

If you point a video camer at a person doing sign language you will get a video of a person doing sign language not the persons thoughts.


Right, because a video camera couldn't pick up a person's thoughts even if they were physical, just like an audio recorder cannot pick up a person's sign language. So the example with a video camera is like the example with an audio recorder: it would give the same result whether or not thoughts were physical.

For your example to demonstrate that thoughts are not physical one needs an instrument that would be expected to give results if thoughts were physical; that way when it doesn't give results, that's evidence that thoughts aren't physical.

I'm curious if you actually disagree with the two following sentences:

"If something is not physical, then it's invisible not just to this or that physical measuring device, but it's invisible to all physical measuring devices".

"Something being physical or not doesn't depend on our level of technology".

 

I guess your creativity is more powerful than my version of the truth.


I don't understand what you are referring to with "my creativity", what creativity was involved in searching Google, or posting a PubMed abstract?

Or are you saying the authors of the linked paper made up their claims?


I am also rather confused about your second post, in which you say a lot about the "hypocrisy" of my position but I don't know where you get your ideas of what my position is.
 

You claim you allege atheism (there is no God) because you can detect no physics to God. We argue that God is life, God is a spirit (mental) but has no physics.


Where do I allege this? I don't recall doing so in this discussion, in fact I can hardly recall ever doing so on this board. Closest thing might be a conversation years ago with Tirian on the subject, where I don't think I said what you describe. 

Yet you claim to believe in information (with no detectible physics).


And where do I claim that? Not only am I pretty sure I don't claim that anywhere in this discussion, I'm not even sure it's true; it depends on what we mean by "information", and more specifically what you mean by "information". I'm not sure at all I believe in the entity you describe as "information" (as opposed to colloquial meanings, or the scientific use of the word that you say is "code" not "information").
 

When I ask you for the physics of information you find none, give no evidence of any but, nevertheless accept (vy faith?) that information does exist.


That is not quite how those exchanges went, is it. When you ask me for the physics of information, I provide examples of things involving physics and the entities described as "information" by the physicists in question, and you reply they aren't information. Which is fair enough, but it highlights the fact that we disagree on what "information" is.

(also, note that those responses about distinguishing "code" from "information" boil down to "that's not information because it has physics, and information has no physics"; i.e. it involves assuming your conclusion, which means those challenges aren't technically arguments for your position, but restatements of it).

#66 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 July 2017 - 10:53 PM

I'm curious if you actually disagree with the two following sentences:

"If something is not physical, then it's invisible not just to this or that physical measuring device, but it's invisible to all physical measuring devices".

"Something being physical or not doesn't depend on our level of technology".

yes, i agree with the above.
taken together though, it's apparent that there could be a physicality that we are completely unaware of.
we could ad lib on the subject and suggest the supernatural, or any number of things.
noooo, there can't be a supernatural, it's ludicrous.
since when has "ludicrous" been evidence of anything?
  • Mike Summers likes this

#67 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 06 July 2017 - 07:41 PM

Aelyn said:

Posted 03 July 2017 - 06:39 AM
Mike Summers, on 28 Jun 2017 - 6:52 PM, said:

Regardless of what it can demonstrate in principle, your example as stated definitely doesn't demonstrate thoughts aren't
physical;
Nor does it demonstrate that thoughts are physical.

Again, I ask for any physics of thought. So far you have given none--leading to the possible conclussion that there may not be any.

I would be worried if it did, given it's an example you provided to support your claim that information (which you claim thoughts are) isn't physical.

When you provide examples to support your position, the fact that they don't demonstrate the opposite position is really a bare minimum to hope for. But they do need to demonstrate the position they're being given as a demonstration for.

I was using the technology of the day--tools currently available to test for the presence of code. For example I have a digital recorder that records both video and audio (code) but no informattion (it's my job to decipher the code). I can code and decode information and have. So have you!

if an experiment gives the same result when something is physical (like sign language) as when it isn't, then the results of the experiment cannot prove that something isn't physical.

But the experiment does not give the same results. The thing is in either case we have recorded no innformation but we have redorded code when it was caused by a choice on the part of the thinker to transpose thought to code.
 

You missed the "as stated" qualifier. There are two ways of seeing your experiment: taking it literally as you described it (audio recorder included), and extending it to include any measuring device. I addressed both aspects in my reply; the two first paragraphs looked at the generalised experiment with any measuring device, and the last paragraph, that referred to "your example as stated" was a side-note about the former.

Mike S said: If you point a video camer at a person doing sign language you will get a video of a person doing sign language not the persons thoughts.

Right, because a video camera couldn't pick up a person's thoughts even if they were physical, just like an audio recorder cannot pick up a person's sign language. So the example with a video camera is like the example with an audio recorder: it would give the same result whether or not thoughts were physical.


Do you think code and information have different identities?

My predictions would not have concluded that an audio recording would have picked up visual code. Neither would you!

So what do you suppose controlled the person's arms hand and finger musccccles to create the "sign lannguage" code?

For your example to demonstrate that thoughts are not physical one needs an instrument that would be expected to give results if thoughts were physical; that way when it doesn't give results, that's evidence that thoughts aren't physical.

Interesting twist. Kinda do the impossible to prove the impossible is possible. lol Get real! How low will you go to disagree with another creator just to be right?

I'm curious if you actually disagree with the two following sentences:

"If something is not physical, then it's invisible not just to this or that physical measuring device, but it's invisible to all physical measuring devices".
"Yep! That's a good start. But remember we are aware of things like radio waves although we can detect hem with tools.
"Something being physical or not doesn't depend on our level of technology".

 

I guess your creativity is more powerful than my version of the truth.

I don't understand what you are referring to with "my creativity", what creativity was involved in searching Google, or posting a PubMed abstract?

You have taken the adversary position whick is innate to all of us. If I create up, you will create down. If i create right, you will create left. It's about being unreasonable.

Or are you saying the authors of the linked paper made up their claims?

Similarly where are all the transitionals? Perhaps we need more sensitive tools other than scientists vivid imagination? LOL

I am also rather confused about your second post, in which you say a lot about the "hypocrisy" of my position but I don't know where you get your ideas of what my position is.

 

Mike Summers, on 30 Jun 2017 - 07:28 AM, said:

You claim you allege atheism (there is no God) because you can detect no physics to God. We (edit christians) argue that God is life, God is a spirit (mental) but has no physics.

Where do I allege this?

Allege is my replacement term for your claim to know who can or can't exist in a universe you have never explored. I don't think you are qualified to know who can and can't exist. I refuse to acknowledge you as all knowing.

Yet you claim to believe in information (with no detectible physics). That is incongruent with you position on God.

And where do I claim that? Not only am I pretty sure I don't claim that anywhere in this discussion, I'm not even sure it's true; it depends on what we mean by "information", and more specifically what you mean by "information". I'm not sure at all I believe in the entity you describe as "information" (as opposed to colloquial meanings, or the scientific use of the word that you say is "code" not "information").

Your participation and your response to my posts demonstrate your position. 

When I ask you for the physics of information you find none, give no evidence of any but, nevertheless accept (by faith?) that information does exist. No physics for God either but he can''t exist.

Moreover, there are over 5000 spoken language but information in every human is the same. How come there are so many languages--showing that code is a variable associated to information. Why not use pure information to communicate?

That is not quite how those exchanges went, is it. When you ask me for the physics of information, I provide examples of things involving physics and the entities described as "information" by the physicists in question, and you reply they aren't information. Which is fair enough, but it highlights the fact that we disagree on what "information" is.


Baloney! I am not buying it. You have come up with no evidence of any physics of information. You, like all of us can generate code when you want and not generate code when you don't want to. You like all of us can think with no physical evidence of thought. We all do it!

(also, note that those responses about distinguishing "code" from "information" boil down to "that's not information because it has physics, and information has no physics"; i.e. it involves assuming your conclusion, which means those challenges aren't technically arguments for your position, but restatements of it).

Then yo
Code is a variable. Different code can represnt the same information or different information. information is not
s variable.

Do you honesttly think I believe you see no difference between a piece of matter and your mental state? Try letting someone beat you like they beat a peace of matter (rock). Then tell me there is no difference between matter and our mental state.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users