Teleporting Information

[Kaylia]

As far as the scale of this Universe relative to other Universes, yes, Relativity works fine.

You can't say this, unless you make the assumption that time and space also exist outside the boundaries of our universe the same way they exist within.

[Max™]

Actually Relativity predicts that they could exist in different ways outside of this Universe, and describes solutions which would appear to be interfaces between Universes. Fascinating stuff.

[Kaylia]

I'm happy for you if you can tell that much about interaction between universes, but I will wait for a more solid basis before making extrapolation. Using a physics models outside the range it was designed for and tested is asking for trouble, unless you're actually trying to test its limit. The pretty mathematical figure you're getting are probably as accurate as an universe described with Newton physic would be, maybe less.

Again, we still don't understand the concept of "force" well enough to assume anything about this. The jump from within our universe to the "outside" is about as large as the jump from mechanics to general relativity.

[Max™]

You can tell a lot about Universes from experiences within one, and logic.

I understand forces fine, I think the lack of understanding you're describing is referring to the relationships between them?

[Kaylia]

You can tell a lot about Universes from experiences within one, and logic.

I understand forces fine, I think the lack of understanding you're describing is referring to the relationships between them?

You could tell about another universe similar to our, you can't say anything about interactions between universes. There is a huge difference between both.

It doesn't mean you can't attempt to build a model based on this, but you need to understand you're taking a huge guess about many things. Even worse, you're building the "next" theory using uncompleted model that aren't even working.


Not being able to explain relation between 2 things in physics is exactly what we call "not understanding". Electroweak, strong, gravitational are postulated in our models, because we can't explain their nature yet. Until we get experimental data to support those models, they will remain theories.

[Kuya]

Rewinding this a bit, but how are you comparing a computer to a human brain? As far as i'm concerned, most psychologists are still not sure what the nature of the human "mind" is, because we have no empirical method of investigating it. I can only see comparing a computer to the human brain as a mistake unless you say what aspect of cognition you're trying to relate to a computer. No psychologist would say this:

once you realize the brain is a big computer

[Alleya]

Rewinding this a bit, but how are you comparing a computer to a human brain? As far as i'm concerned, most psychologists are still not sure what the nature of the human "mind" is, because we have no empirical method of investigating it. I can only see comparing a computer to the human brain as a mistake unless you say what aspect of cognition you're trying to relate to a computer. No psychologist would say this:

This, and I should know.

Science geeks always say this. Saying the brain is a computer is pushing it big time. The computer is a product of the human mind, not an analogy for it. It functions similar to us because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to use them. The physical operating principles couldn't be any different, and the level of recursive decision making that goes on in the brain could not be replicated by any computer on earth. Computers are the fundamental distillation of human logic, that's it.

[Kaylia]

When you see "computer", you're thinking about a PC working on conventional algorith, and I agree those are far away from our brain, even if you could draw some parallel. The term however is broader than this.

Genetic algorithm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Artificial neural network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the base, something that receive input, take a logical (efficient) decision based on "memory" and return an output is a computer, and that's pretty much what the brain do.


Our brain doesn't work under a new set of physics laws. Every atoms and molecule inside it will follow the same pattern you can observe anywhere in the universe. While the complexity of the interractions and molecules involved make it nearly impossible to perfectly map it, we can still understand the mechanism that allow your brain to take think and take decission.

[Kuya]

Not to mention computers pale in comparison to human plasticity. I presume Kaylia meant as Alleya said, in terms of logic, because they are simply not that similar and even though i know this frame of reference falls within the cognoscitive movement, i can't shake the fact that it reminds me of conductivists, meaning that instead of equating human "minds" to those of other animals, we compare it to a computer, and they both have the dire error of forcing a frame of reference that is easily understood onto a concept that is poorly understood with little empirical justification for the action, which leads to the innate error of assuming connections as causations.

Our brain doesn't work under a new set of physics laws. Every atoms and molecule inside it will follow the same pattern you can observe anywhere in the universe. While the complexity of the interractions and molecules involved make it nearly impossible to perfectly map it, we can still understand the mechanism that allow your brain to take think and take decission.

You're making the assumption that the human brain/mind/spirit or whatever you want to call that thing that psychologists study is logical, when it is far from it. I think you're putting emphasis on one thing and i'm putting it on another.

[Kaylia]

You're making the assumption that the human brain/mind/spirit or whatever you want to call that thing that psychologists study is logical, when it is far from it. I think you're putting emphasis on one thing and i'm putting it on another.

Great, our brain pass turing test with success.

I wrote a paragraph about this in my last post, but ended up deleting it because it was poorly worded, and I'm running out of time to study for tomorrow exam.

Did you ever see a video game's AI make a poor/random decision? I can assure you it it followed "logic" the whole time and took the best possible course of action it could foresee, even if it was terrible in the end.

It's similar when you're observing an human. Someone might take a decision that seem illogical, but at that time, the decision he took had a larger weigth than the one he rejected.

To determine the "weigth" one person give to a choice is nearly impossible with the tool we have, which is why we have to analyze a person's behavior on a higher level (the one psychologist analyse).

[Kuya]

The human brain can pass a test created by a human brain, yes, success. And when i imply illogical i do no not refer to errors, because a decision is illogical, if you can define this properly, does not mean that it's a bad decision to the one making it. You assume that logical decisions always lead to correct answers, something apparently Turing himself proved wrong. The problem is, the "correct answer" becomes less and less correct the more complex the situation becomes, and it becomes a mere preference for certain consequences over others. What i am referring to if you have not understood is the emotional and cultural motivation behind decisions, a point well proven when one understands that some memories are not actually recalled by a simple input or direct stimulation, but rather, by emotion. I do not think i have to explain to you that the strongest memories, meaning the ones easily recalled and recalled most often, are the ones with strong emotional ties.

As i've said this argument is a difference in emphasis.

analyze a person's behavior on a higher level

What do you mean?

From the link you posted:

The Turing Test is explicitly anthropomorphic, testing only whether or not the computer resembles a human being, not if it is generally "intelligent" or "sentient". It fails to test for general intelligence in two ways:
Some human behaviour is unintelligent, but the Turing test requires that the machine be able to execute all human behaviours, regardless of whether or not they are intelligent. It even tests for behaviours that we may not consider intelligent at all, such as the susceptibility to insults, the temptation to lie or, simply, a high frequency of typing mistakes. If a machine cannot imitate human behaviour in detail, bad typing and all, it fails the test, regardless of how intelligent it may be.
Some intelligent behaviour is inhuman. The Turing test does not test for highly intelligent behaviours, such as the ability to solve difficult problems or come up with original insights. In fact, it practically requires deception on the part of the machine: if it quickly solves a computational problem that is impossible for a human to solve, it by definition fails the test.

Even if the Turing test is a good operational definition of intelligence, Searle argues, it may not indicate that the machine has a mind, consciousness, the ability to "understand" or have thoughts that "mean" anything (what philosophers call intentionality).
Turing responded to this line of criticism in his original paper, writing that:
I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. There is, for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localise it. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper.

[ByeByeTasai]

Wiki already has this covered thoroughly. I don't know how accurate it is, but it makes a lot of sense the way they have it laid out.

Quantum teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kaylia]

By higher level, I'm talking about doing a generalization similar to what you do when you use Newton's mechanics instead of quantum mechanics to solve a problem.

Instead of analyzing the brain completely, one neurones at time, you observe particular behavior between humans and use those to get an idea of how it works inside. It's less accurate, but in the context, it's much more efficient and do the job just fine.

The human brain can pass a test created by a human brain, yes, success. And when i imply illogical i do no not refer to errors, because a decision is illogical, if you can define this properly, does not mean that it's a bad decision to the one making it. You assume that logical decisions always lead to correct answers, something apparently Turing himself proved wrong.

I'm not talking about "errors" or "correct answers". There is no such thing as error in the nature.

The problem is, the "correct answer" becomes less and less correct the more complex the situation becomes, and it becomes a mere preference for certain consequences over others. What i am referring to if you have not understood is the emotional and cultural motivation behind decisions, a point well proven when one understands that some memories are not actually recalled by a simple input or direct stimulation, but rather, by emotion. I do not think i have to explain to you that the strongest memories, meaning the ones easily recalled and recalled most often, are the ones with strong emotional

Name a color and a tool.


Red Hammer? Blue Hammer? Even when it become a "mere preference", our brain still have to pick a choice. Emotions and memories all play an important role, but those things are just a part of the machine you have inside your brain. They affect it in a way that could be quantified if we had access to all the biochemical information we need.

[Kuya]

Instead of analyzing the brain completely, one neurones at time, you observe particular behavior between humans and use those to get an idea of how it works inside. It's less accurate, but in the context, it's much more efficient and do the job just fine.

I don't understand; use human behaviour to extrapolate how it "works inside"? If you mean seeing which parts of the brain light up when you do something, you're making a huge leap and doing what i mentioned before, confusing connection with causation, and if you mean, actually, i don't know what you mean other than that, because making laws out of human behaviour does not make sense.

Emotions and memories all play an important role, but those things are just a part of the machine you have inside your brain. They affect it in a way that could be quantified if we had access to all the biochemical information we need.

These answers get boring eventually. If you would allow me to oversimply what you said; you are saying "we'll figure it out eventually". There's nothing for me to say to that, aside from saying that's based on faith, as the only thing you're saying is that we'll someday find out how the brain causes memories or emotions or however you want to word it.

You work on different premises than i do, though i suspect you know little of psychology but have your opinions informed by a more positivist approach to knowledge. Because we work on different premises, and value different things, we'll never come to the same conclusions and hence this is pointless.

[Kuya]

Red Hammer? Blue Hammer? Even when it become a "mere preference", our brain still have to pick a choice.

I would have picked the blue hammer, but apparently, that was just my brain choosing for me.

[Max™]

You could tell about another universe similar to our, you can't say anything about interactions between universes. There is a huge difference between both.

It doesn't mean you can't attempt to build a model based on this, but you need to understand you're taking a huge guess about many things. Even worse, you're building the "next" theory using uncompleted model that aren't even working.


Not being able to explain relation between 2 things in physics is exactly what we call "not understanding". Electroweak, strong, gravitational are postulated in our models, because we can't explain their nature yet. Until we get experimental data to support those models, they will remain theories.

I missed out on a big part of the rerail, but you don't seem to grasp what calling something a Theory means... it isn't the same as conjecture, or hypothesis, or idea, or guess... it means a working, testable, and generally at least partially confirmed set of data.

[Kaylia]

I don't understand; use human behaviour to extrapolate how it "works inside"? If you mean seeing which parts of the brain light up when you do something, you're making a huge leap and doing what i mentioned before, confusing connection with causation, and if you mean, actually, i don't know what you mean other than that, because making laws out of human behaviour does not make sense.

What do you think happen inside your brain? Do you think neurones are magical entity or what? If it's not magic, it's physics, and it can be explained and modelized.

Because every brain work similarly, you will be able to observe patterns between individual, and you can build a science (psychology) around it. If every brain were fundamentally differents, doing something like this would be impossible.

These answers get boring eventually. If you would allow me to oversimply what you said; you are saying "we'll figure it out eventually". There's nothing for me to say to that, aside from saying that's based on faith, as the only thing you're saying is that we'll someday find out how the brain causes memories or emotions or however you want to word it.

You work on different premises than i do, though i suspect you know little of psychology but have your opinions informed by a more positivist approach to knowledge. Because we work on different premises, and value different things, we'll never come to the same conclusions and hence this is pointless.

I tried reading my sister's school book a few months ago (think it was after the last argument with you), but gave up midway because the content was pissing me off. The good informations was painfully obvious, and I was doubting the validity/importance of some of the stuff mentioned.

My understanding of the technical terms and methods is probably not as good as someone who studied psychology, but I'm sure I'm not miles away either. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if most psychologist have no clue what a brain is, and go mindlessly with what they were told.


Our understanding of the mechanics behind the brain is relatively good at this point. Decoding the informations into word and scanning the brain is going to be the hardest part. However, not having the mean to do something, and knowing it can't be done are two completely differents thing.

But like I said earlier, we don't need to dig that far to be able to help someone. Being able to draw a list of the important stimuli and knowing personality archetypes is more than enough in most case. That's what psychology do, and I've no problem with it. It doesn't make the brain less of a machine tho.

I would have picked the blue hammer, but apparently, that was just my brain choosing for me.

Try again, but without your brain this time, and tell me your answer. Shouldn't be a problem, since the "I" and "my brain" are two different entity.

[Kaylia]

I missed out on a big part of the rerail, but you don't seem to grasp what calling something a Theory means... it isn't the same as conjecture, or hypothesis, or idea, or guess... it means a working, testable, and generally at least partially confirmed set of data.

"I'm actually working on a theory which explains Quantum Mechanics"

Okay. So which data your new theory is able to answer? And what part is testable?


To be sincere, I'm under the impression you are you playing with mathematics after one of those crazy ideas most physicist get late at night.

[Kuya]

What do you think happen inside your brain? Do you think neurones are magical entity or what? If it's not magic, it's physics, and it can be explained and modelized.

Because every brain work similarly, you will be able to observe patterns between individual, and you can build a science (psychology) around it. If every brain were fundamentally differents, doing something like this would be impossible.

There isn't a hollow center in my brain, so i presume you mean where exactly my consciousness is. I don't know where in my brain it is or how my brain "makes" my consciousness. Where's yours?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if most psychologist have no clue what a brain is, and go mindlessly with what they were told.

You're not familiar with Kuhn's paradigms, are you?

Our understanding of the brain is relatively good. The hard part is to scan the brain and decode the information, because we don't have the tool for it. However, not having the mean to do something, and knowing it can't be done are two completely differents thing.

No proof that the brain is a computer yet so predisposed to accept it as fact. Your desire to understand it as such, and my desire to understand consciousness as a social construction has less to do with overwhelming evidence that supports our beliefs and more to do with informed experiences, both explicit and implicit. As i've already said, a pointless debate.

But like I said earlier, we don't need to dig that far to be able to help someone. Being able to draw a list of the important stimuli and knowing personality archetypes is more than enough in most case.

We don't, it simply is a shame that certain people insist on explaining things away as biologically determined without enough proof for it, and justifying it for themselves after they create their conclusions.

Try again, but without your brain this time, and tell me your answer.

Apparently, you're not sure what you're saying. You weren't telling me my brain is a pre-condition for my cognition, that much is dreadfully obvious, you were saying one of two things, that my brain's composition determines my preference for a blue hammer, or that my brain's composition possess the elements that would allow a foreign entity to conclude that i prefer a blue hammer without ever consulting the conscious subject that is myself. That or you expressed yourself quite erroneously.


I've said this three times now, but i don't think you're acknowledging it, and you likely never will. You're not arguing with me because you know for sure that the brain possess the qualities with which to accurately extrapolate everything we think, you argue for it because it seems convincing for you, based on your outlook on what is likely to be true elsewhere. Most psychologists wouldn't dare say it's a sure thing, as you've alluded to; the reason why psychology has so many different epistemological divisions is because of the inability to determine what the "mind" really is, unlike say, determining what a cell is. So different psychologists take different approaches to the enigma, whether it is by studying the psychological apparatus via conduct, whether it be via the conscious, whether it be via the brain, or whether it be via social context. Nothing but an issue of emphasis on the multiple qualities that compose what we like to refer to as ourselves.

[Tristam]

I don't understand; use human behaviour to extrapolate how it "works inside"? If you mean seeing which parts of the brain light up when you do something, you're making a huge leap and doing what i mentioned before, confusing connection with causation, and if you mean, actually, i don't know what you mean other than that, because making laws out of human behaviour does not make sense.
These answers get boring eventually. If you would allow me to oversimply what you said; you are saying "we'll figure it out eventually". There's nothing for me to say to that, aside from saying that's based on faith, as the only thing you're saying is that we'll someday find out how the brain causes memories or emotions or however you want to word it.

You work on different premises than i do, though i suspect you know little of psychology but have your opinions informed by a more positivist approach to knowledge. Because we work on different premises, and value different things, we'll never come to the same conclusions and hence this is pointless.

I think that when we say "we'll figure it out eventually" it can be read a little more literally than you're implying. Considering that the basics of memory are very well understood on a molecular level I think at this point most of what we are doing is filling in the blanks. This is why when we say something "lights up" we really do have a more detailed understanding and have some confidence that a signal is actually being processed in a very specific way. It's not a correlation in that case, the electrical signals actually cause you to percieve something, we can directly stimulate certain neurons in monkeys and
make them "see" things that aren't there, it's all electrochemical integrators. Likewise, in the rare cases that humans or animals have specific defects in some brain function (or induced damage), usually we can look at slices of the brain considered to be responsible (which would normally "light up") and lo, the electrochemical signals are dampened when you look at individual cells. Dissecting the causes of problems provides more insight, but the key is that it's all biology.

Now I know little about emotion (which is to say that I'm sure there's a reasonable biological explanation for it), but considering that most neurons function to integrate signals, varying intensities of a signal could make sense in how we percieve "emotion".