If I would have to consciously assess everything I do I would not live one day. I would probably leap off of a building because there would be no reason not to.
Consider the example from my previous post Conscious effort and the myth of will power. Is there any effort in you NOT taking a bottle of poision and drinking it? Probably there isn’t if you’re not suicidal. So why don’t you take it and drink it?
The thing that is holding us from not jumping off a building or drinking poison are reasons, or in other words beliefs. Beliefs are the programming mechanism of the human brain. This is done for efficiency. You do not have free will at every moment of your life, because simply it would lead to innefficiency or even worse to premature death. If you are walking up the stairs you cannot think about every movement of your legs because it would take forever to climb them. The brain is a finite state machine, it operates on simple models. So if you want to change the way you do things, you do not use conscious effort to achieve that because it doesn’t work. You must change how the subconscious mind operates.
You change the models inside your head.
(All my life I have been seeking answers to a really simple question: how do you do things. Because it is really simple if somebody tells you to do something, or gives you money for it, or generally you have no other choice. But what if you want to do something that is entirely yours? I hope I’m getting close to it, so I’m gradually writing all I know down.)
This is what happens if you do things the wrong way. By using conscious effort for example:
If you have ever programmed bot A.I. you know that you can program it to have a certain set of states which it operates on.
For example:
– if see enemy shoot
– if see cliff stop
– if low on health seek medikit
– if kill enemy say “haha!”
Now humans and every other animal operate in the same way. Simply because this system works. That’s all that evolution cares about.
Problems arrise when the states are not sufficient to describe the world you live in. For example if a bot picks up a rocket launcher and doesn’t have a state programmed not to shoot it at a wall it will soon kill itself. This is where you come in handy for the body.
In contrary to a bot you have the ability to program yourself. If a bot could program itself during play time we would call it intelligent. The same thing is for us, if we can program ourselves, we are intelligent.
(according to me, intelligence is not your ability to calculate long mathematical sums, it is your ability to study yourself – “Know thyself”)
The first step to becoming intelligent is to notice that all beliefs in your brain are just part of a state machine and they are simply there not because they are true but because at one point in life or another they were USEFUL.
Think of anything you knew back when you were a child and which you considered true. For example religion. Notice that you probably believed in God at one point or another because that pleased mommy and daddy. The belief was useful because it was a survival benefit in your young eyes. If you believe in a God today and have a different reason to do that, it still is useful to you in some way. I believe in Odin because it gives me strength, what do you believe in and why?
These beliefs directly correspond to action, what you do, what you say, how you think. This works like a machine. Gurdjieff made a lot of people mad in the beginning of the last century because he stated that people are “machines”. It’s funny how a machine can get mad because there is a program written in it called “ego”. The machine is just responding.
Threat to ego -> “I am better than you” -> Talk insults.
Action -> Belief -> Reaction.
Yes, you are a machine. Until you become intelligent.
For example a person that believes his destiny is to become a millionaire and has absolutely no regards when it comes to money he will devote his life to attain that goal. Working day by day like a machine and soon will probably achieve that goal.
If you have a goal like that to obtain money and you have contradicting beliefs you will never achieve your goal.
If I made a Soldat bot with a state “killing is bad”, it would be a useless bot.
If you have a belief “money is bad”, or “bad people make money” or anything like that, that belief will work against your goal.
Another example, from my post about Joey De Maio and the comments. What if you believe assholes are bad people and accomplishing your goal could be only done if you became an asshole?
I’m sure you can see many examples in life where you have to be a prick to gain anything. Now if you believe that is wrong, surely you won’t ever accomplish your goal! You would always run into blocks and think endlessly why you can’t get anything done and of course you would try to use conscious effort and will power. Search for the root of your behaviour. That’s how you change things.
I didn’t start bodybuilding until I got rid of a belief that only stupid people lift weights (don’t know where that came from) and what use is in having muscles? I’m not gonna lift cars or anything like Hercules?? I replaced those with a belief that I actually NEED to train.
Here I can see exactly the fault of rational thinking because before I started training I never saw any benefits from it, I was just blind. But once I packed some muscle I instantly saw a million benefits, some which I would never guess would happen.
Most good things in life are not rational, you just need to free your mind and do them.
And no amount of will power or conscious effort will ever make them happen. Simply because you are a machine working on beliefs and there is no such thing as will power.
Fortunately there is free will and this is what you can do.
You can become the programmer of your own brain.
Did you ever see Aibo robot dogs playing a soccer match? They put them on a field and they try to kick the ball in the opponents net. There are a couple rounds, after each of them, the programmers take the dogs aside, plug them into a laptop (through a USB switch in their ass) and change their code. Adjust something and then put it back to see if it plays better.
This is exactly how this works. You have very little conscious control once you’re doing something. But you can always stand aside and reprogram the code that is wrong.
I won’t write what you have to do exactly cause there are millions of methods of doing this, also this is something you do every day, you just don’t know it. I believe everyone works a little bit differently and if you are serious about this you will find a method of your own that suits you and works for you. If you want to understand and see how this works perform this little mind game. I got it from R.A. Wilson, he claims to have gotten this from some California occultists. Whatever, this shows you how you really work (from the book Prometheus Rising):
[Imagine a Magic Room, and this Magic Room
contains an Omniscient Computer]To play this game, you simply “astrally project” into the
Magic Room. Do not ask what “astral projection” means, and do
not assume it is metaphysical (and therefore either impossible, if
you are a materialist, or very difficult, if you are a mystic). Just
assume this is a gedankenexperiment, a “mind game.” Project
yourself, in imagination, into this Magic Room and visualize
vividly the Omniscient Computer, using the details you need to
make such a super-information-processor real to your fantasy.
You do not need any knowledge of programming to handle
this astral computer. It exists early in the next century; you are
getting to use it by a species of time-travel, if that metaphor is
amusing and helpful to you. It is so built that it responds immediately
to human brain-waves, “reading” them and decoding their
meaning. (Crude prototypes of such computers already exist.)
So, when you are in this magic room, you can ask this Computer
anything, just by thinking of what you want to know. It will read
your thought, and project into your brain, by a laser ray, the
correct answer.There is one slight problem. The computer is very sensitive to
all brain-waves. If you have any doubts, it registers them as
negative commands, meaning “Do not answer my question.” So,
the way to use it is to start simply, with “easy” questions. Ask it
to dig out of the archives the name of your second-grade teacher.
(Almost everybody remembers the name of their first grade
teacher—imprint vulnerability again—but that of the second
grade teacher tends to get lost.)
When the computer has dug out the name of your second
grade teacher, try it on a harder question, but not one that is too
hard. It is very easy to sabotage this machine, but you don’t want
to sabotage it during these experiments. You want to see how
well it can be made to perform.
It is wise to ask only one question at a time, since it requires
concentration to keep this magic computer real on the field of
your perception. Do not exhaust your capacities for imagination
and visualization on your first trial runs.
After a few trivial experiments of the second-grade-teacher
variety, you can try more interesting programs. Take a person
toward whom you have negative feelings, such as anger, disappointment,
feeling-of-betrayal, jealousy or whatever interferes
with the smooth, tranquil operation of your own bio-computer.
Ask the Magic Computer to explain that other person to you; to
translate you into their reality-tunnel long enough for you to
understand how events seem to them. Especially, ask how you
seem to them.The Poet Prayed:
Oh would some power the giftie give us
To see ourselves as others see usThis computer will do that job for you; but be prepared for
some shocks which might be disagreeable at first.
This super-brain can also perform exegesis on ideas that seem
obscure, paradoxical or enigmatic to us. For instance, early
experiments with this computer can very profitably turn on
asking it to explain some of the propositions in this book which
may seem inexplicable or perversely wrong-headed to you, such
as “We are all greater artists than we realize” or “What the
Thinker thinks, the Prover proves” or “mind and its contents are
functionally identical.”This computer is much more powerful and scientifically
advanced than the rapture-machine in the neurosomatic circuit. It
has total access to all the earlier, primitive circuits, and overrules
any of them. That is, if you put a meta-programming instruction
into this computer; it will relay it downward to the old circuits
and cancel contradictory programs left over from the past. For
instance, try feeding it on such meta-programming instructions
as:1. I am at cause over my body.
2. I am at cause over my imagination.
3. I am at cause over my future.
4. My mind abounds with beauty and power.
5. I like people, and people like me.Remember that this computer is only a few decades ahead of
present technology, so it cannot “understand” your commands if
you harbor any doubts about them. Doubts tell it not to perform.
Work always from what you can believe in, extending the area of
belief only as results encourage you to try for more dramatic
transformations of your past reality-tunnels*.
*a reality-tunnel is what you experience as reality. It is the total set of your beliefs and models of the world.
What can I say except… AMEN.
Damn man that’s some pretty hard stuff you’re smoking.
Mind if you provide a lite version for the tl;dr types?
MM, Ive written what I thought were arguements a few times, only to realize…. right before I hit the send button, that I dont disagree with anything in the first place or that I am able to answer my own questions through further relfection o nthe subject.
this information self-evident and increasingly profound to me.
Man… that just explains everything o.O. While reading your post “Hey, but i have teh “belief” that salad is good, so why i don’t eat food?” and then i rode a little further: “o.O of course! i think that salad taste is bad so it just stops the “eat salad” “trigger”
Man… MM…. awesome… you NEED to write a book… when you fell like it of course 😀
Interesting… that indeed does makes sense in my mind. Maybe having this belief enables you to alter your others how you like…
Talking about AI I coded a game in Pac-Man once and randomize the pac-man in the area. It was time for AI, I think I maide it revolutionary, my monsters send some “detection” blocks wen it it’s a wall it says: “there’s a wall there don’t go” if it touches pac-man it says: “pac-man is there” and my monster speed’s up and kill pac-man.
In fact it’s maybe not the “normal” way but it works really good so I keep this one
“If I would have to consciously assess everything I do I would not live one day. I would probably leap off of a building because there would be no reason not to.”
ERROR on line 2. Reason required for action. Lack of reason means lack of action.
“This is what happens if you do things the wrong way. By using conscious effort for example: [insert video]”
You are confusing bad programming with conscious effort. The robot can’t walk up the stairs because it’s programming is too limited. I on the other hand can use conscious effort in moving, e.g. when playing hopscotch. Conscious effort is only wrong if you are using it wrong, fixating on something instead of focusing on it.
“Simply because you are a machine working on beliefs and there is no such thing as will power”
Free will is the ability to reprogram your brain. Will power is your ability to maintain that programming, even though external or internal parameters try to change that programming. I will reiterate the example of the drug addict who decides to go cold turkey. He exercises free will when he initially takes the decision to quit his addiction. For the next two months his internal hormonal programming tries to erase his self-programming. If he has the required will power he will battle and win. If not, he will regress to his addiction.
“What can I say except…AMEN”
Second.
@Anonymous: Just to get this straight… is it you, the same person, in every other post or are there multiple “anonymous” people with the same name?
SpiltCoffee: exactly! It’s a metaprogram that can modify all previous programming and it will.
rfreak: there is no ‘normal’ way to make AI, think out of the box, whatever works. I see that pac-man working.
bigbossSNK: My point is, if you would have no reasons you would just live “in the moment” and you would qickly hurt yourself. The video is just a joke. Addicts that use will power are still addicts. It doesn’t work. Consider a smoker that is trying to stop smoking for 5 years. Wow amazing will power. Now consider a person that stops smoking just by deciding to do so after years of smoking. I know many people like that.
Spot on again. Only one problem with this post: half of it was an extract from someone else (which I struggled to understand).
Beliefs are indeed very important to people, especially when you are in your infancy where you have no set of rules to live by. There was a story in my local paper the other day, you might of heard of it as it’s spread quite a bit; A teacher in Sudan let her pupils name a teddy bear ‘Muhammed’ (the prophet of Islam) this sparked a row among the Sudanese people who are followers of Islam and they took to the streets demanding that she be executed. To me, and most people who don’t follow Islam, that’s completely stupid. All she did was let her pupils name a bear for fuck sake. But the Sudanese people saw it as an insult to what they believe in – they were taught that Muhammed was higher than anyone else. So can we really blame them for defending their beliefs?
It would be like me coming up to someone and saying “Your daughter will fail in life and become a hooker and a drug user.” You believe in your daughter and want her to do well and if someone tries to insult that then you take offense and defend that belief.
“My point is, if you would have no reasons you would just live “in the moment” and you would quickly hurt yourself”
My point is, not having any reasons in your life doesn’t lead to random actions. It’s best to separate between not having any reasons for acting (which leads to your brain following the path of least resistance) and acting aloof or thoughtlessly (which means you let your brain follow the basic urges of curiosity or other instincts)
Addicts that use will power are still addicts
There’s a misconception of how addictions work. The chemicals that create the addiction remain in your body for quite some time, certainly a lot longer than it takes for someone to decide to quit or not.
In your example, both people faced continuous internal conflict between their hormonal programming and their decision programming. The people with will power faced up to the challenge, the others didn’t.
@teh_ham
Sure, you want your beliefs to be respected. At the same time, you need to respect other people’s beliefs. In your example, the offense of the teacher was to speak of the prophet’s name in vain (I gather), and the penalty the people proposed was death. In this case there is an obvious imbalance between the respect of beliefs and the universal respect for human life.
Well, Michal. I think you think like Nike.” Just do it”.
And that is a very limited information. Technology and science come with reason and rational. But it began with a bet. Like “things are made of atoms”. But that bet had rational reasons.
I think you are right if you say:
In a battle of simple will against simple imagination, imagination kicks ass to will.
I am refering to subconscious and conscious too.
It’s certain that the way we change ourselves is using faith, courage, sense of destiny and illusion. But without rational thinking we will fail at long term.
If not as individual yes as humanity.
And the force of man come from the force of men.
teh_ham: Spot on again. Only one problem with this post: half of it was an extract from someone else (which I struggled to understand).
There’s nothing to understand there. It’s a mind experiment. Don’t think about it, just do it.
Tallacaps: I don’t think great discoveries come from rational thinking. It is used only to prove theories and to reinforce beliefs about the current reality. Big breakthroughs come when people dare not to think “reasonably”.
Rational thinking really isn’t any good, it is just a projection, or permutation of your current knowledge. Nothing new comes out of it. Like in my bodybuilding example, I had perfect reasons not to train years ago, yet it is much better for me to do it.
Rational thinking perhaps is not needed for the genious people but for normal people. With rational thinking normal people can do with effort great things.
I know genious don’t need rational thinking but they are genious!
Without rational thinking and debating, no science and no technology.
Science is based in scientific method, a very boring method!
But it works.
Training is good for intelligence. I read that from science people.
But they have proved this with the boring statistical and scientific method.
Tallacaps, science is thorough by nature. the statistics might be boring, but they hold profoundities that are revealed through icreasingly creative methods.
“Like in my bodybuilding example, I had perfect reasons not to train years ago, yet it is much better for me to do it.”
Sorry to break it to you Michael, but your faulty preconceptions aren’t really perfect reasons. They were just wrong beliefs copied from someone else.
“Rational thinking really isn’t any good, it is just a projection, or permutation of your current knowledge.”
I don’t see why it isn’t any good, as Tallacaps said. It’s only a problem when your beliefs don’t correspond with reality. Then you have to destroy part of your beliefs and come up with new ones. They are perfectly useful for the part that they correspond to reality though.
Tallacaps: I don’t believe in genius. I believe everyone is normal. “Genius” people just have a certain way of thinking and anyone can adopt it.
bigbossSNK: how do you know your beliefs corrsepond to reality, today?
“how do you know your beliefs correspond to reality, today?”
Because they are in correspondence to physical data in the world around me. See, if you lift the veil of arbitrarity that is religion, you are left with the physical world and science. And at this stage in human evolution, science is developed enough to stand on it’s own.
“I don’t believe in genius”
You obviously mean everyone can be creative, and come up with his own ideas. This is true, but the mark of genius is to come up with ideas that are both original in their conception (creativity) and of a great departure from the ideas already available. Not all people are available of this.
“You obviously mean everyone can be creative, and come up with his own ideas. This is true, but the mark of genius is to come up with ideas that are both original in their conception (creativity) and of a great departure from the ideas already available. Not all people are available of this.”
Then luck may also be involved, hey?
bigbossSNK: You are being an automaton. Don’t blindly respond to everything. You’re exactly like a machine I described in this post. Meditate on new ideas. It’s the only way to notice destructive beliefs.
For example this: can you say something IS? Can anything be or are things ever changing? Meditate on that for a couple days.
“You do not have free will at every moment of your life, because simply it would lead to innefficiency or even worse to premature death.”
Very true… it’s conscious decisions that matter the most. Because frankly even if you say ‘screw the thought process’ of making art and go for a more random intuition-based creation.. it’s still driven by the fact that at some point you’ve realized doing things the intuition-based way is more fun, satisfying or effective and that must have been a conscious decision. Not every unconscious decision that you would make consciously would kill you, but it definitely would be inefficient.
”
““I don’t believe in genius”
You obviously mean everyone can be creative, and come up with his own ideas. This is true, but the mark of genius is to come up with ideas that are both original in their conception (creativity) and of a great departure from the ideas already available. Not all people are available of this.” ”
True, but you don’t have to be extremely innovative to be a genius… It depends a bit on your perspective. Simply adding/combining already existing things into something new is as innovative as it is not innovative if you see what I mean. Still… I don’t believe in ‘dumb geniuses’ so to speak. I don’t think stupid people could make extremely impressive and really genius things. They are able to make right decisions at the right time, even if just by luck though… which is why some stupid persons are still able to make a fortune and so on.
I guess being able to find the ultimate solution in certain situations or for certain problems is for me what really defines someone as a genius together with a noticeable higher intelligence, but off course such a solution must be actually thought out by that person and not simply have come into existence by ‘the sum of all circumstances’.
( Just thought of something else. Sometime great and important things are just a result of logic and consequence of previous ideas and so on, but it doesn’t make them less important. )
bigbossSNK: I understand your point, but everybody would practically posess the ability to think beyond our world, they just never try because they are to aligned to the world we live in today and some just never aquired the knowledge required to think about bigger things. Besides, most people just try to have a peaceful life and dont even bother about thinking of other things. If they would, however, (and this, I think, requires a certain amount of will power, to sit down and think about stuff even though it is nothing that may be of importance to your life) i think they would have the ability to. I also agree that all people could have great ideas, ingenious ideas, if they just focused on this.
But there is one thing… I think for a person to be a genious there is more in play than just “a great ideea”. I think a genious would have greater mental abilities than others, like remembering stuff faster and better ( i saw a guy that just flew once over Rome and was then able to draw the whole city down to the last tiny window) than “normal” people, and I think that can only be something you’re born with.
“Then luck may also be involved in genius?”
We all live in a world where luck is a factor. Using randomness to your benefit is a sign of intelligence.
“Meditate on new ideas.”
The ideas you propose aren’t new to me. I’m just trying to spare you some time by giving you answers I already know are true. I find we agree on some respects, like it being easier to solve a problem through focusing rather than fixating, and disagree on others, like the body’s actions being disengaged from the brain (which to me indicates you have some definition of the body that doesn’t include the brain).
“can you say something IS?”
Of course I can. It’s called physical reality. My kitchen table exists whether I think of it or not. Solipsism doesn’t cut it in the real world, no matter how much time you spend defending it.
“a genius solution must actually be thought out by that person and not simply have come into existence by ‘the sum of all circumstances’.”
It’s the thought process that justifies calling someone a genius or not. So even of the solution comes into existence by the sum of all circumstances, if the person can predict that outcome beforehand through thought experiments, I don’t see why he isn’t a genius. Understanding self organizing systems is definitely a difficult exercise after all.
@Cosmin
Speed of recollection and memory capacity are factors of intelligence, but not proof of genius. Savants have an enhanced ability to perform mathematical operations in their brain, or remember pi to the 1000th digit of accuracy but they aren’t geniuses. I maintain that genius stems from originality of ideas AND a significant departure from the conventional way of thinking.
A departure from the conventional way of thinking would be insanity. There must be few sane genius around…
Anonymous, Picasso painted in an unconventional way. Einstein proposed time changes per object as it’s speed increases. Your comment is uninformed. Unconventionality does not always mean insanity.
@bigbossSNK: Well I dont see why Picassos painting should have been that unconventional… when i draw a couple of lines, is it also unconventional? I dont thionk there is a mass for “conventional” when it comes to art.
And Einsteins relativity theory… I dont think its that unconventional, he took a look at things we already knew and put them together so that they fit. Cuz nobody had thought about time changing. But nobody has lived in a world where people would say “time is flowing in only one direction”. Lolz, there have been stories of timetravel way before Einsteins theory 😛 .
Picasso’s painting is unconventional in that it defied direct representation. Basically, Picasso’s painting style is about taking the constituents of the object and placing them in a way that is non representational, but still recognizable as the initial object. If you were to come up with that idea on your own, you would be a genius too.
“I don’t think Einstein’s theory is unconventional”
Then you don’t know what conventional means. Conventional ideas are the ideas other people have come up so far to interpret reality. At the time Einstein came up with his theory, time was considered by people to have the same pace under any circumstance.
“He took a look at things we already knew and put them together so that they fit”
No, he took part of what we already knew, disavowed some conventions (like the uniformity of time that was assumed up till that time) and then put things together. That’s why his theory was unconventional.
“There have been stories of timetravel way before Einsteins theory”
Einstein’s theory has nothing to do with time travel. Research it if you like, but if you aren’t a physics major, I don’t see the point.
There is one thing that both Picasso and Einstein had in common. They didn’t give a damn about what others thought at the time, and they gave a damn about the current social or scientific trends. I believe that is a big part to consider, if you want to classify what a genius is.
bigbossSNK:
“can you say something IS?”
Of course I can. It’s called physical reality. My kitchen table exists whether I think of it or not. Solipsism doesn’t cut it in the real world, no matter how much time you spend defending it.
Well what if you’re wrong. This isn’t about solipsism, there is an absolute reality. But think about it, is there really a kitchen table in that reality?
Isn’t what you call a kitchen table just a bunch of atoms flying around in space?
Furthermore, isn’t it just a probable state of the atoms to be there in the first place, and really they are there and everywhere at the same time?
Furthermore, isn’t it just different levels of energy anyway?
The kitchen table exists only in your head. In reality everything is just a bunch of floating… everything… so you can’t say the kitchen table IS.
@bigbossSNK: When I said “timetravel stories existed way before Einstein” I didnt mean his theory had anything to do with that, but that people before him have indeed considered time as being a variable instead of a constant. If just fiction or not, it was not something that hadnt been really thought about before. And no, the “unformity of time” was not accepted as a physical law. It was just supposed to be so because there were no reasons up to that time to believe it else. And just because I’m not a “physics major” doesnt mean I am not permitted to say my opinion about stuff like this. I dont have to be a politician to recognise political acts as they are and talk about them.
“The kitchen table exists only in your head. In reality everything is just a bunch of floating… everything… so you can’t say the kitchen table IS.”
The assortment of atoms that make up my table is a physical reality. The idea of the table I have in my brain is a representation of reality. The table exists both in its physical form of atoms AND in my brain, as a neuron structure. We just deal with the definition of existence under different disciplines. One is the physical one, the other is the neurological one.
“Whether it be fiction or not, time’s variability was not something that hadn’t been really thought about before.”
Well, you’re wrong. Time’s variability had never been proposed earlier. Fiction might have come up with some time of time sequence mixup, but in no sense did it ever relate time to an object’s speed. And that’s the difference between a correct theory and some half baked idea.
“just because I’m not a “physics major” doesn’t mean I am not permitted to say my opinion about stuff like this.”
I never claimed otherwise. In fact I like a discussion with multiple points of view. I only said researching relativity (as in the mathematical formulations and what they mean) might be difficult for people who aren’t physics majors.
1+1 IS 2. Snap.
“Time’s variability had never been proposed earlier.”
It is impossible for you to know that.
“I find we agree on some respects, like it being easier to solve a problem through focusing rather than fixating, and disagree on others, like the body’s actions being disengaged from the brain (which to me indicates you have some definition of the body that doesn’t include the brain).”
Where did you pull that from? He said the “body’s actions being disengaged from the conscious“.
“It is impossible for you to know no one had proposed time’s variability earlier.”
Google it, kid. Research the history of science during the beginning of the 20th century. There is no record of people approaching the idea of time with anything other than linearity since Newton (who formulated his theories based on this principle). And even if I grant you the possibility someone had an idea of time varying, no one proposed such a formulation publicly. But I ask you this: If you had found a new law to represent reality, would you keep it to yourself, or make it public and reap the benefits?
“He said the body’s actions being disengaged from the conscious”
It is an undisputed medical fact that your consciousness stems from part of your brain. Disassociating your body’s actions from the consciousness means disassociation from the brain. One claim leads to the other with mathematical certainty.
Another article full of misconceptions and half-truth’s. It doesn’t have any scientific value nor any philosophical value for that matter, because it just claims without backing up and is too absolute to let people think for themselves.
Michal:
If beliefs are so bad, why don’t you keep your beliefs about the human mind and brain to yourself? There is no way you could know all of what you write, you also can not prove it, so it comes down to you believing in your misconceptions and theories. What is it that makes your believe better than others? It is also so overly simplified that it is ridiculous.
This time I will not go through the trouble of quoting text-passages and revealing the misconceptions in there, because there are way too many.
This article seems to be so carelessly written it is unbelievable. Come on, Michal I believe you can do better than this.
You can fool people never having philosophical questions before with this but every other intelligent being out there will read it and see all of your misconceptions.
If you really think that there is something to the matters you write about, then please try backing up your claims and don’t be so vague with your terms. Because if you continue like this nobody will take you seriously in the long run.
“Google it, kid. Research the history of science during the beginning of the 20th century. There is no record of people approaching the idea of time with anything other than linearity since Newton (who formulated his theories based on this principle). And even if I grant you the possibility someone had an idea of time varying, no one proposed such a formulation publicly. But I ask you this: If you had found a new law to represent reality, would you keep it to yourself, or make it public and reap the benefits?”
If you discovered a new law that had never even been thought about before do you think it would be easy to get people to believe you? People aren’t as ignorant these days as well, so it would of been harder back then.
“Trying to get people to believe your theory would be more difficult before Einstein’s time”
Indeed, and for good reason. Einstein based his theory on observations from the Michelson – Morley experiment, which happened in 1887. Up till that time, there was no proof to justify anything wrong with Newton’s theories. So even if someone had thought of something like time’s variability before that, his theory would be just an assortment of random thoughts, not a formulated theory, much less in correspondence to reality.
@Cranky
Extracts from Michals post?
@Cranky
Haha, where is your backup to the fact that this is all just a big misconception? And why wouldnt the humand mind work that way? I dont see a problem in that. I just think you’re too fixed on that which you believe in and would therefore criticize any theory that didnt fit to that, no matter if it were true or not (or true but unproven). Chill out, it’s just an ideea going in the round, nobody losing lives here u know?
Cranky: Another article full of misconceptions and half-truth’s. It doesn’t have any scientific value nor any philosophical value for that matter, because it just claims without backing up and is too absolute to let people think for themselves.
I give a shit about scientific or philosophical value.
You think I am a philosopher, I am not. I specifically wrote that this article (and the ones before it) are about HOW TO DO THINGS. The only value there is here is exactly how do you do things.
The only way you can disprove me is actually show what you can do and accomplish using a different methodology.
There are so many people out there that accomplished pretty much in their lives and they didn’t regard themselves as robots. So obviously there are other ways to do things, other than the way presented by you.
So why should someone change all his believes and believe you instead, if he can also go into the local bookstore and buy a book about selfmotivation which won’t change his believes about the world and god or whatever and still will lead to things getting done. Otherwise I can’t explain why some of these books end up being bestsellers.
Also, there are guys that claim that their disease got cured “miraculously” after every doctor said that guy would die. So god himself must have wanted him to live, so he tells everybody to believe in god because they will get healed. Just because believing in god works for him, does it mean it will work for other too? Just because your theory works for you, does it mean it’s the way of live everybody should adapt to?
Also, why isn’t religion enough to do things? If things don’t work out, you blaim rational thinking. Religion blaims the faith of people.
“HOW TO DO THINGS”
Learn what you can from other people. Focus on the problem at hand rather than fixating on it. If there is a disagreement between physical reality and your ideas, change your ideas to represent reality.
“Also, why isn’t religion enough to do things?”
Religion is a bunch of arbitrary notions some people well over 2000 years ago came up with (there’s also crap similar to Scientology like crap, but let’s not go there). And in it’s arbitrarity, it disagrees with physical reality. It might have a placebo effect on some people, but not more than that.
“The only way you can disprove me is actually show what you can do and accomplish using a different methodology.”
I agree that your way of “Relax and it will come to you” works, if you have the necessary thought faculties. But saying that the consciousness and the body are separate is just medically incorrect, as discussed above.
Cranky: Most people accomplish things but never think how they’ve done it. They don’t study it, like I do. So when you ask them what’s the secret of their success they’ll give you the first best answer like: genes, raising, will power etc.
Sure you can buy a self-motivation bestseller but are you sure people buy it because it’s good, or is it just marketing?
The only reason why you would believe me, is because you like what I’m doing. Maybe you’re curious how I do it? There is a reason why you’re here reading my stuff?
bigbossSNK: I agree that your way of “Relax and it will come to you” works, if you have the necessary thought faculties. But saying that the consciousness and the body are separate is just medically incorrect, as discussed above.
Sure scientists can say, consciousness is this and that and it is located here in the cerbral cortex or whatever. Sorry, but that answer does not satisfy me. It does not explain why do I see thoughts/feelings, how do I understand a book, why I am here, what exactly am I and why in the hell do I experience the world!? If consciousness is just a part of the brain, why do I need to be it, can’t it work without someone being an observer. If it’s a biological machine it should.
“Why do I have thoughts?”
The cause is neurons sending electrical impulses, and forming synapses. The reason (on an evolutionary greater picture) is to give you the possibility to have a greater correspondance to reality, i.e. giving you an edge over other people.
“Why do I have feelings?”
The cause is the production of chemicals in the amygdala and other parts of the brain. The reason (again, speaking about evolution) is to form stronger bonds within a social contexts and avoid some situations/ people.
“How do I understand a book?”
You read the book by internally interpreting it’s symbols, basically copying and pasting the pictures of the symbols in the book to the brain. After you have decoded the symbols, they lead the brain to a structure of neurons, an idea, which you relate to ideas you already have. If you read about a new idea, you can build a synapse and connect one idea to another, relating the two.
“Why am I here?”
The cause is that the assortment of neurons that make up your body occupy physical space. Sociologically, the reason is that the sum of your previous actions have lead you here. If you are asking “what am I supposed to do with my life?”, the answer is simple, whatever you want.
“what exactly am I?”
Depends on the physical facts. I wouldn’t be wrong in assuming you have all human characteristics, hence you are a homo sapiens. If you had a proboscis, you’d probably be an elephant.
“Why in the hell do I experience the world?”
The cause is sensory input from your body’s organs relayed to the brain. The reason (again, considering evolution) is so that you know what the physical world around you tastes, smells, sounds etc. like, so you can make correct and informed decisions.
Why can’t my body work without an observer, my consiousness?”
It can, it’s just more energy sufficient if there is a notion of the self. If you wipe away this notion, the body still receives input, but cannot act on itself and will likely make bad decisions.
Typo “Why am I here?” …the assortment of atoms… (not neurons)
Well, I think you guys are just too stiff when it comes to ideeas that dont fit your own. Relax. It’s a THEORY. Aristoteles and Kant also had THEORIES, they had no backup whatsoever and where still accepteb because it was a POSSIBILITY, how things may work. So is this. So why judge it like that? Man i hate critics that have this need for destruction instead of doing sth useful and come up with own ideeas.
Cosmin, how do you know these aren’t my ideas? I never read a philosophy book in my life. All my knowledge of philosophy comes from my own thinking and scientific data, and to a small degree from reading Wikipedia. Besides, theories exist to explain and predict physical facts. If they aren’t in accordance to physical facts they are useless.
Michal:
I enjoy reading philosophical texts, thus I enjoy your articles, although your previous articles were better, because they were more like “lets think about stuff”. This one is more like “This is my theory. Take it or leave it.”
bigbossSNK:
The reasons you give say why thoughts, feelings, consciousness etc. are useful (which makes sense regarding your scientific view of the world), but you’re avoiding the true question like that. Although the true answer (if there is one) wouldn’t most probably matter scientifically, it would matter for most people. This is why religion, philosophy or even articles like this exist. They try (or don’t) to give meaning to peoples lives, by providing answers to questions like “Who am I?”, “Why am I here?” etc.
For this reason I will quote Kant here: “All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually. Moreover, in a collective relational context; namely, to know what ought to be done: if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only.” (Wikipedia) So although some things might not be real (like God, or the afterlife, the human soul or whatever) and thus would not matter scientifically, they have a great impact on human beings. It is the same with this article (this is, if it is about believes, what I think it is). It might have impact on people whether it is true or not, which is why I compared it to religion. My critique was regarding the ideas in the article, though, to show that this article is about believes itself.
Cosmin:
Just because something (generally speaking) is a theory it doesn’t mean it is any good. Yes Aristoteles and Kant also had their theories, but Aristoteles isn’t thaught in school because his theories are so awesome, but because he had an impact on later philosophers, although his theories proved to be (in my opinion, this is debatable) false. One thing which is still used today though are the categories of logic Aristoteles came up with and even Kant used them later for his theory. Kant on the other hand isn’t that highly regarded because of his epistemology (well, he was at his time), but because of his moral philosophy (and I really believe the only reason he wrote his book about epistemology is, because he needed free will to exist for his concept of morality to work).
What I want to say is, it is pretty much obvious why Aristoteles theory had flaws, and if you read Kant you will also know where his flaws are, so if even the big philosophers have flawed theories, why shouldn’t everybody else have flaws too?
And Aristoteles and Kant were also criticised and are still being criticised (the criticism is almost as interesting as their work itself btw). Just because something is a theory, it doesn’t mean you can’t criticise it.
And its wrong that the other theories had no back up. Kant wrote an entire book just to back up his moral philosophy.
Frankly, that this article is about misconceptions was a claim by me too, which I didn’t back up, but I gave the reason for that, it would have been too much work. I did that for my other comments, though.
And don’t get me wrong, I like writing about what I disagree. I agree on some things Michal wrote, but don’t on others. So I write about those I don’t agree and try to show why those ideas are flawed (in my opinion). I can be provocative at times, though. I believe that way it is more constructive (just my personal preference). With back ups and word definitions and less vague terms this article would be perfectly fine. The thing I meant with misconceptions are stuff like “The brain is a finite state machine, it operates on simple models.”, just so you know what I meant.
And someone wrote earlier that this is self-evident. If it is so, why weren’t there more people that answered “pirate monkey” in that other game?
there are still a lot of phyiscal events that cannot be explained(well, now mainly concerning black holes and such, but that will do for the example) and people try coming up with a lot of theories for that. If they’d be so stubborn about it, they’d never figure them out.Or what about quantum physics? It’s not that old and it has been so absurd for a long time, that physicians didnt even bother checking it out. And now? Now it’s the 2nd most important branch of physics. No ideea should be kicked off from the start just because it sounds in a way that doesnt fit.
“Philosophy and religion try (or don’t) to give meaning to peoples lives, by providing answers to questions like “Who am I?”, “Why am I here?” etc.”
The thing is, those answers have a specific physical equivalent. You ask “Who am I?”. This in itself is vague, in that the same question can be read in many ways: What’s my name, Who are my relatives, What species am I, What abilities do I have, What would I do in a given situation? Religion and philosophy don’t provide answers to these questions. They repeat vague platitudes that sooth people who don’t have the vigor to search for the truth.
If the truth is your destination, you follow science. If you just want gratification NOW, you choose religion (and in some cases philosophy).
Kant and other philosopher proposed their theories when scientific principles weren’t used on discovering the peculiarities human interactions. Sociology and physhology hadn’t been formulated yet, and even if they did, had little medical founding. Freud for instance considered that people act primarily for the gratification of sexual desires. That this is not the case has become apparent through scientific research, the search of truth.
To put it aptly, philosophers ask questions that cannot be answered and their answers are questionable!
“No idea should be kicked off from the start just because it sounds in a way that doesn’t fit.”
Agreed. All I’m saying is that ideas that don’t correspond to reality are faulty. You can provide any theoretical structure on any subject, but the final test for your theory is it’s correspondence to reality. If it fails there, bite the bullet and move on.
“If they’d be so stubborn about it, they’d never figure them out.”
This is just wrong. Did you ever read of Stephen Hawking? He had this theory about black holes that physical information would disappear once they pass the event horizont and there was this one physician that ciriticed it and worked on a theory over the years just to disprove Hawkings theory. In the end he really disproved him, and in the end Hawkings had to come up with a different theory. I don’t remember the details, I just saw a documentary long ago, you can read about it on wikipedia if you want, though. So being stubborn isn’t that bad as it seems?
bigbossSNK:
Science does not say anything about truth. Science only applies to the physical reality. It is for explaining physical phenomena. It is not about truth itself, more truth of how the physical reality works. Who knows if there is more than just what is physical?
Also, what if you are dreaming, right now. Most certainly, things happening in your dreams could be explained by scientists in your dreams so that you believe that your dream is reality and you are experiencing truth, which you aren’t. And you can never tell if you are dreaming or not. Everything might be an illusion, it might be not. Scientifically speaking, it is a fact that your senses provide the information about the outer reality and your brain interprets those information provided. What if you are halluzinating, all the time? What is so truthful about that?
You say that the answers provided by philosophers are questionable. Of course they are, everything is. Science itself is questionable, too.
“The thing is, those answers have a specific physical equivalent.”
Ok, then lets ask this: “Why is there a physical reality?” Is there a physical equivalent to the answer of this question? And there most certainly is a answer to this question, even if it is not accesible to us. So can Science ever provide an answer to this question? I don’t think so. But wasn’t science about truth? Science makes an assumption: That the physical world is real. This isn’t a fact!
@bigbossSNK: “You can provide any theoretical structure on any subject, but the final test for your theory is it’s correspondence to reality.” -agreed
@Cranky: hehe, if bring stubborn leads to new great ideas, then it’s of course a good thing to be. But this is rather the exception I think… But yes, agreed
“Science does not say anything about the truth”
I define truth as a correspondence between neuron structures and reality. Science alone searches for this truth. If you propose some other viable definition for truth, you will have to present it.
“Who knows if there is more than just what is physical?”
I do. By definition. Existence requires a certain degree of interaction with physical reality. What does not have physical properties does not exist.
Meta physics is like magic. Good to keep you guessing for a while, but not really something that can’t be explained.
Oh, and there is no Santa either. 😛
“Why is there a physical reality?”
The cause was an explosion at the origins of the Universe that created matter as we know it, the Big Bang. The reason? There is no reason. The universe existed way before you or I lived in it. Live in it and have fun while you can, cause one day, long after we are dead, the universe will collapse back onto itself, into a singularity. In essence, the universe is a “no observer required” zone.
“Science makes an assumption: That the physical world is real. This isn’t a fact!”
And why not? If this is about some kind of Matrix “alternate reality through thought manipulation” I have already answered why this isn’t the case in an earlier entry (on this blog). Happy to repeat it if you are so inclined. Other than that, denying physical reality is like denying you have a physical existence: good for two minutes, then you remember you have real, physical needs which you must satiate to survive.
Haha bigbossSNK you’re like a computer spitting out current scientific knowledge. If your children will read this in a 1000 years they will laugh at it. In the same way we laugh at the scientific ideas of our great grandfathers.
I know all this stuff you’re writing about, I know everything about neural networks and brain circuitry. Nevertheless that knowledge does not answer my questions.
You’re like a typical scientist. You ignore certain questions just so that you can suit your answers to the knowledge you have. You have a certain set of answers that you believe correspond with reality and you use them whenever there is a question, it doesn’t matter if the questions can be answered by science or not. What you know about science is a belief you have. In order to maintain that belief you consciously/unconsciously ignore questions that don’t fit your reality model, or reality tunnel. This is a great phrase from R.A. Wilson – reality tunnel.
It is exactly like that. If you know how the brain works, then you know it must interpret the world through senses. Also it has a certain capacity and computational power, meaning you can’t focus on too much things at a time. To overcome this limitation the brain creates a model. This model is of course written in the neural structure. It is limiting, therefore it is like a tunnel. It shows you only a piece of reality. You see only a tiny piece in front of you, but you see darkness everywhere else.
You do not ask yourself the real question -What am I?- because if you would think about it for more than 2 seconds it could shatter your reality. And certainly you do not want to do that, because you would have to go deep. Deep into the rabbit hole. You don’t want that because it would destroy your current model of reality. It is a survival threat. This is what brains do. They create models which WORK. They need it in order to survive. If a model works, then they must leave it because it is good in evolutionary terms.
Brains do not create models that are TRUE.
Science is also JUST a MODEL.
So is philosophy and anything else you might think of.
Science cannot measure evidence through correspondence with reality. No scientist in the world can give you an answer to the question -What is reality?. Becuase every scientist is just a human, just a brain. If there was something outside of human thought and came here and told us what is reality, then I would believe that thing, because it would have perspective.
Humans have no perspective.
Every single human being on this planet is stuck in their head.
We’re like tiny bacteria living in a flat 2D world of a drop of water. All bacteria experience the same thing. The bacteria create models to operate inside the drop of water. They have theories how to function inside of it. They even have defined reality – as everything we can measure and experience. But they have only tiny little touch sensors, they have no idea that you can see, smell, hear the world. If a bacteria starts to wonder about such things, it starts to feel threatened by those ideas. It fears that if it loses its reality tunnel, it will be a source of suffering, death, riducule. So it believes. It doesn’t matter if it is religion or science. It just believes. And every single belief has little or no correspondence to reality because the bacteria doesn’t even know what reality is in the first place. Everything is based on a false assumption.
Sure some bacteria construct measuring devices and they see that certain “fields” as they call it affect their reality. They call these fields gravity, magnetism, sound, light etc. But none of the bacteria can explain WHAT it is. They can only tell how it affects what they call reality. They can only draw it and label it. But none will actually stand out and question, but what is that really?
The same with questions like -Who am I? You can explain what the “I” does, what is its function. But WHAT is it?
Sometimes there is born a bacteria which starts questioning everything because it is not satisfied with any answer. It asks -why do scientists think reality consists only of things that can be measured? What if there are things that can’t be expressed as a number? But then it asks other bacteria and they say: reality is this drop of water, everything we measure here is real, hence what can be measured is reality. What… why? You ignored my question!
I agree almost entirely with Michal!
You should make an article out of that comment, about models and reality. Thats really interesting
“Your ideas will be outdated and laughed at in 1000 years, just like our great grandfathers’.”
See, that’s where you are fundamentally wrong. When a scientific theory is replaced by a better theory, the initial theory isn’t disrespected. I realize it’s a matter of preference, but I don’t laugh at Newton or the people who followed his theories on account of Einstein coming up with a more accurate theory.
“People fear that if they lose their reality tunnel, this will be a source of suffering, death, ridicule”
I don’t fear that. I’m all for thinking in unconventional ways, or coming up with new ideas, whatever they might be. I’m all for reevaluating your positions. I consider your “reality tunnel” notion frivolous.
“Science is also JUST a MODEL.”
True, but not all models are qualitatively the same. Among all the models we have, science is the least arbitrary. It might not be perfect yet, but it’s our best approximation, rather a bunch of arbitrary notions.
“why do scientists think reality consists only of things that can be measured? What if there are things that can’t be expressed as a number?”
Again, you are uninformed. Scientists do believe there are things that cannot be measured, or expressed by numbers. String theory proposes several other dimensions to the 4 we are accustomed to. But it all ties back neatly to our reality.
“What if things existed outside our drop of water – perception of reality?”
I’m not saying there can’t be something outside our perception field (though this is incredibly unlikely, considering modern cosmology). All I’m saying is that you will have to give me some evidence of it’s existence for me to acknowledge it as real. Otherwise, I’ m going to consider it an fiction of your imagination, and it ‘ll follow the path of the unicorns, the leprechauns, god, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter bunny.
“WHAT is it?”
It is the universe looking back onto itself. A ouroboros between physical reality and neuron networks. There is no better description than this, at least not one that avoids arbitrarity.
See, the Universe doesn’t require a reason to justify it’s existence, or a qualitative approximation. This is only something you need to do to pass your free time. The Universe was there before you and will be there way past you.
See, that’s where you are fundamentally wrong. When a scientific theory is replaced by a better theory, the initial theory isn’t disrespected.
Of course, but it was wrong. I have nothing against theories that are useful, like Newton’s. But it isn’t true. And I have something against people defending science by heart claiming it is the truth. Every theory is wrong because every one of them is based on a false assumption. Nevertheless that does not imply that science isn’t useful, it is (just not true:).
I’m not saying there can’t be something outside our perception field (though this is incredibly unlikely, considering modern cosmology).
Everything is always unlikely for science. What if it can’t be proven that there exists something else. Just like a bacteria can’t get out of the drop of water and look at the world.
“WHAT is it?”
It is the universe looking back onto itself. A ouroboros between physical reality and neuron networks. There is no better description than this, at least not one that avoids arbitrarity.
That is a WAY better explanation. Saying we don’t know what it is is far closer than saying it is this neural network in the head. I don’t how about you, but an ouroboros fascinates me a million times more than any scientific theory.
“science is useful, just not true”
I define truth as a 1:1 correspondence to physical reality. You have yet to provide your definition of the truth.
“Everything is always unlikely for science”
That’s just wrong. No scientist claims everything is unlikely.
“Just like a bacteria can’t get out of the drop of water and look at the world.”
What you claim is that there exists a mysterious “thing” that is both beyond our understanding AND has no physical manifestation (because if it had a physical manifestation it would be within our capability for understanding). The bacteria don’t have a realization of physical reality. They are just genetic code. You ARE qualitatively different than the bacteria, so extending the analogy is faulty.
You are free to assume the existence of something above our cognitive sphere, but I will only be convinced your claim isn’t arbitrary when you provide some proof.
“Every theory is wrong because every one of them is based on a false assumption.”
Point out this assumption you claim is false.
“Saying we don’t know what it is is far closer than saying it is this neural network in the head”
I didn’t say I don’t know what it is. I said it is self existent. It doesn’t require my explanations or formulations to exist. There is a difference.
typo -> but I will only be convinced your claim isn’t arbitrary UNTIL you provide some proof.
scratch that 😛
Anykind of proving by me will only lead you to grounding yourself more and more in your illusions. As I wrote, the only proof I would accept is if it did not come from a human being.
I define truth as a 1:1 correspondence to physical reality. You have yet to provide your definition of the truth.
That is the false assumption. Maybe not false, I just don’t know if it is true or not. You claim that there is such a thing as truth, reality etc. I’m just not sure.
What if we live in a universe which lives and changes all the time. What if we don’t discover new theories we just see physical laws changing, we just think we discovered them. What if the universe can change its physical laws. What was true 10000 years ago might not be true now. What if gravity didn’t exist at some time. What if everything is flexible and changes like time depending on whether we observe it or not. What if there is a physical law that makes reality escape before your eyes at the moment you look at it? I have countless questions like that. They come from a state of mind of not believing in anything that was made by human thought. Your belief in science is no different than the belief of a fundamentalist in his religion. Science is the new religion.
The tooth fairy is a product of human thought. The big bang theory is a product of human thought.
I consider them both false. That is my definition of a lie – human thought.
It doesn’t mean I don’t accept the big bang theory it explains a lot, I just don’t believe it. The tooth fairy is also useful because it gives you money. That’s all there is to it.
“The only proof I would accept is if it did not come from a human being.”
Don’t hold your breath.
“I’m not sure there is such a thing as reality or truth. What if we live in a universe where the laws change?”
If the laws of the universe change, science will try to incorporate that change. Science does not define reality. Reality defines reality. Science just tries to correspond to it.
“Science is the new religion.”
Not really. Religion is based on mindless conformity. Science on critical examination. Religion stays the same. Science changes to incorporate reality. I don’t believe in science because someone told me to. I chose to use scientific principles after critical examination of the alternatives, and found it offers me a greater degree of correspondence to the physical world.
“That is my definition of a lie – human thought”
Cool. By your definition, your own definition is a lie. But if your definition is a lie, there must be another definition that is correct. I guess you need to find another definition for “lie”.
“The tooth fairy is also useful because it gives you money”
I take it you’re joking and leave it at that.
“The tooth fairy is a product of human thought. The big bang theory is a product of human thought. I consider them both false”
The tooth fairy does not correspond to any physical reality. The big bang theory does. Both are human structures, but they are qualitatively different. If you acknowledge the existence of the physical world you acknowledge reality. If you don’t, you can claim anything.
If you can make 1+1 not equal to 2, MM, then you win.
I don’t see how that can be untruthful, to be honest. 1+1 IS equal to 2, and nothing can change that.
“I define truth as a 1:1 correspondence to physical reality. You have yet to provide your definition of the truth.”
Did you watch the movie Matrix? Consider we live in such a matrix (I take matrix as an example because I am too lazy to think of another concept).
Your definition of truth would also apply to things happening IN the matrix, although they aren’t real.
I don’t see why you need a definition of truth. Truth is simply the truth, nothing that can be measured by correspondence. Truth isn’t being qualified by correspondence. Truth is qualified in that that it is true in every single context.
Science isn’t about truth. Science is about finding out how the physical world will answer to questions (this is the process of experimentating). Theories are there for being able to predict answers (or reactions). So science will never be able to find out the truth behind our physical world (which might be that we live in a matrix or whatever) but it might be able to find out how our physical world works.
Also something science has no answer to is:
Why did live evolve? We almost for sure know HOW live evolved, but we don’t know why it happened. No theory explaines why it is better for something to “live” than for it to be dead. Scientifically speaking, where is the difference between a stone and a human being? Can the concept of “life” even be defined in scientific means? I don’t mean the cause like “electric impulses and neurons”, these are just the mechanics. In a sense those mechanics don’t even explain how consciousness is accomplished. Isn’t it even as if there is a gap between consciousness and the physical world?
Yes, you can investigate the mechanics behind brains, but if you define consciousness like that, then it would be like a clock having some sort of consciousness, too. This is why scientists suspect the consciousness is just an illusion and that there is no such thing as free will, but there is no way to be ever sure about that. The thing is, just because you know how the physical world works, it doesn’t mean your psychological world is build upon that physical world (the idea behind souls). Is there even a way to find out wheter there is something that binds our psyche to the physical world? In the end the “correspondece” might be coincidence.
Another thought:
Some scientists supsect the consciousness to be an illusion because they make the assumption (or they believe) that science will someday lead to truth. But for our scientific knowledge today there is still no way to explain consciousness, so they try to derive consciousness from the physical world, which leads to the result, that consciousness is most probably just an illusion. This is science, not reality.
“Why can’t it be that we live in a Matrix like world?”
Simple. You take the theoretical limits of thought transference. This is based on physical reality, the amount of time it takes for electrical impulses to travel along neurons. This theoretical limit is tied to the speed of light, as an electromagnetic wave, and the electrical conductivity of dendrites. If there is a Matrix, this theoretical limit will be violated, because every processing operation (however minute and however advanced the computer) takes time. Since no such discrepancy exists, we don’t live in a Matrix.
“So science will never be able to find out the truth behind our physical world”
Science finds the truth IN the physical world. Answers behind the physical world are purely human creations. As I said, humans, science, religion, thoughts are unnecessary to the Universe. Whether you provide an answer “behind” the physical world is de facto meaningless.
“What purpose was there in life evolving?”
Again, purposes are human constructs. They are there to satisfy emotional needs for people who are so inclined. The difference between a rock and a human is the complexity of matter organization, the complexity of the system. The rock obeys a limited amount of physical laws, humans have an ability of self organization and social interaction.
“Is there even a way to find out whether there is something that binds our psyche to the physical world?”
Yes, there is. Shutting down specific parts of the brain (e.g. through medication) shuts down the person’s sense of self, sense of others etc. What clearer depiction of the correspondence between the brain’s physical reality and what you call consciousness?
“The thing is, just because you know how the physical world works, it doesn’t mean your psychological world is build upon that physical world (the idea behind souls)”
Yes it does. Your psychological world stems from the brain. Your “soul” is the outcome of the brain’s proceedings, in which “you” (your consciousness) have influence.
“Consciousness is an illusion”
Scientists don’t think consciousness is an illusion. Philosophers do. To scientists, consciousness is as real as the Earth.
“There is still no way to explain consciousness”
Neurology. Problem solved.
“If there is a Matrix, this theoretical limit will be violated, because every processing operation (however minute and however advanced the computer) takes time.”
Why would the theoretical limit be violated?
The processing operation could take 1000 years for processing just 1 second of simulation of the matrix and no one would notice the difference. Why do you think that time outside the matrix runs as fast as inside?
The matrix does not have to be processed in realtime…
And it is amazing how you think that science would be the answer to everything.
“Yes it does. Your psychological world stems from the brain.”
How do you know that? There is no way you can find that out.
And another argument against your “truth is 1:1 correspondence with the physical reality” argument:
If that was true, then there would be one and ONLY one theory that could possibly have 100% correspondence with the physical reality.
But what if there are two, three or even more theories which are contradicting each other and still correspond 100% with the physical reality because they have the same results, but rely on different mechanisms. Can you guarantee that there is only one theory that explains everything and which you can call the truth? Or is every single theory true, even if they are contradictory?
To make it more clear. Think about a scientist that can prove that physical world as complex as ours can be simulated without concepts like soul, free will and he shows that the outcome is the same as it would be in the real world. Does that mean, just because it corresponds, the physical world operates the same? Can’t two theories which operate completely different have the same outcome? How will you be able to distinguish between the wrong and the right one?
Just think about it, science is just an utility, not the truth.
“Again, purposes are human constructs.”
Science is also a human construct. If something doesn’t have meaning just because it is a human construct, then science also does not have any meaning to it and has nothing to do with truth. Because every theory comes out of a human mind doesn’t it? But I guess there is a exception to it, because science is something special, isn’t it?
“The matrix does not have to be processed in realtime…”
It does if you want the person inside the matrix to be of the same age as the person outside the matrix (as was seen in the movie). If you add a time relay between the calculation and execution, ages don’t match.
“How do you know your psychological world stems from the brain?”
I’ve already explained this. You are free to research it yourself. Your psychology is based on neurotransmitters and chemicals in the brain. Adjusting these chemicals changes your mood, concentration ability etc. Modern psycho-pharmacology is the proof you need.
“If truth is 1:1 correspondence to reality, then there would be one and ONLY one theory that could possibly have 100% correspondence with the physical reality.”
Not necessarily. String theory claims to predict the same results as relativity and quantum mechanics, by introducing more dimensions. I don’t care what formulation (read theory) you use, so long as the final correspondence to reality is maintained. That is the only requirement of science.
“How do you distinguish between the wrong and the right theories?”
Your initial assumption of a scientist being able to prove the existence of souls in some kind of non physical form is false. Science is based on physical realities, not some mysterious hocus pocus. No scientist would ever propose, much less be able to prove something that isn’t based on physical reality. Your soul exists, and it is the result of your brain processes.
“It is amazing how you think that science would be the answer to everything”
Science doesn’t have the answer to everything, yet. It’s just a way for people to find the answers they are looking for, and be certain of the validity of those answers.
“Just think about it, science is just an utility, not the truth.”
I never said science is the truth, or a lie, or anything of the sort. I said science is the search of the truth, a formulation to represent physical reality with a 1:1 correspondence.
I think you need to make a distinction between physical reality and the representation of that reality in the brain. If this representation is in 1:1 correspondence to reality, then it is the truth.
“If something doesn’t have meaning just because it is a human construct, then science also does not have any meaning to it and has nothing to do with truth”
Don’t take things out of context. I never said purposes have no meaning. I only said their meaning doesn’t extend to the existence of the Universe. In fact, it extends only to human interactions. Science doesn’t have this limitation.
“It does if you want the person inside the matrix to be of the same age as the person outside the matrix (as was seen in the movie). If you add a time relay between the calculation and execution, ages don’t match.”
Well, we might not look like this outside of the matrix. We might actually be advanced lifeforms which can live for millions of years.
Anyways…
“Simple. You take the theoretical limits of thought transference. This is based on physical reality, the amount of time it takes for electrical impulses to travel along neurons. This theoretical limit is tied to the speed of light, as an electromagnetic wave, and the electrical conductivity of dendrites. If there is a Matrix, this theoretical limit will be violated, because every processing operation (however minute and however advanced the computer) takes time.”
None of this would matter if the matrix is a different world to what it is placed in. The speed of light might be a whole lot faster, or might not even exist, but it is in the matrix simply because the matrix can’t process anything faster than that speed.
Of course, we most likely don’t live in a matrix. For one, I think the idea that we are actually in one is bullshit.
“We might actually be advanced lifeforms which can live for millions of years.”
“None of this would matter if the matrix is a different world to what it is placed in”
I acknowledge the idea of a “universe within a universe”, one universe with one set of laws that somehow controls another universe. But no reasonable man would be convinced of conjecture without proof.
See, unlike in the matrix, our universe doesn’t have glitches, no physical proof that there is something wrong it. You can theorize on the existence of other universes, but no reasonable man will be convinced of this without proof. And if you deny the existence of such proof you might as well become a scientologist.
bigbossSNK : It’s just a way for people to find the answers they are looking for, and be certain of the validity of those answers.
Now this certainty of yours is what boggles my mind.
Your replies to the matrix theory clearly show me that you don’t think, at all. It is beyond your imagination.
You have something in your head called “1:1 correspondence to physical reality” and you would die for that statement :).
See, if you follow a theory you’re just like a computer program printing answers of the algorithm. There is no thought between the printing.
You just don’t see what is outside your belief system. You are blinded from the “truth”.
It is like the blind spot on your eyes. Make this experiment and think again if you can see (know) everything: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
“I don’t care what formulation (read theory) you use, so long as the final correspondence to reality is maintained.”
Don’t you see the significance of this?
Two theories might have both 100% correspondence, but can imply very different mechanisms. When I said soul I didn’t mean some hocus pocus. I meant the possibility of free will.
Imagine there is a theory that assumes free will and shows 100% correspondence. Image there is another theory that assumes that there is no free will and shows 100% correspondence. Scientifically it doesn’t matter which theory you use for predicting reality, but can you determine onto which theory reality relies on?
Even though both theories have the same outcome, they have different implications for the individual. Having or not having a free will has also moral implications. So tell me, what is the truth? Is there free will? Can science show me the truth behind reality?
Do you really think that some “hocus pocus” such as free will does not matter for the individual?
“The matrix is beyond your imagination”
I already acknowledged the possibility of such a Matrix, and discarded it. I’m not blinded by my “truth”. I examined the idea carefully and disproved it. I really can’t say why you think I would die over science. I proposed my ideas as better than yours and provided proof. If you ‘re writing these things only for the sake of writing and not to have a dialog that will lead to a correct answer, you’re just wasting your time.
“You just don’t see what is outside your belief system”
Again, I gave thought to your writing. I considered their possibility. And after much thought, I discarded them as foundless. Tell me, without proof, what differentiates YOUR foundless claims from the Yeti, or the Loch Ness monster?
“Two theories might both have 100% correspondence, but can imply very different mechanisms”
Let me make it clear. Two complete theories over reality can exist, but obviously cannot contradict between themselves on their predictions of the physical world. Since free will is based on physical reality, at least one of the theories is incorrect.
If, on the other hand, you disassociate free will from physical reality then obviously the theory can’t extend to it. Theory cannot make prediction on what is not physical. It’s the safe switch for coming up with arbitrary notions.
And on the subject of free will, I already explained that humans have free will, at least by my earlier definition. If you want to have a valid conversation, provide a definition for free will.
“Make this experiment and think again if you can see (know) everything”
I never claimed to know or be able to know everything. But what I know, with proof that is for everyone to examine, I know.
Further than that, your example only proves me correct. There are limitations to our physical perception (visual or mental) and you can circumvent them if you know how your visual or mental system operates. Understanding these limitations and is filling the gaps arbitrarily is two different things.
There is a clear distinction between narrow mindedness (refusing something just because it doesn’t suit your point of view) and disregarding an idea after critical examination. I’ve provided physical truths that disagree with your notions. You remain convinced of your propositions without backing them up to my counterpoints.
How do you know Yeti doesn’t exist?
I’m just messing with you. I won’t prove anything to you because to understand what I’m writing about you have to let go of that mind set. This is not about being right or wrong. My point of view is no better than yours. I respect your opinion but I would like you to understand mine. The thing is I know where you are coming from, I’ve been there, I used to understand reality by thinking about it. From much experience I came to realize thinking is bullshit. Now how do I explain this to a rationalist? No reason in the world would convince you, you would have to see for yourself.
“I respect your opinion but I would like you to understand mine.”
I respect your opinion and understand it too. But if we ‘re talking only to exchange ideas and not find an answer, we’re wasting our time. I’ve examined your ideas and found flaws in them (basically your notion that some things “exist” even without physical manifestation and the consequent disassociation between consciousness and body). I have acknowledged the possibility that there might “exist” something not physical, but stated that claiming the existence of such non physical entities disregards the reality of today’s neurology and psycho-pharmacology. Maybe a notion of a soul without physical manifestation was viable in the middle ages, among uninformed people, but I don’t see how it is viable today among people who know how the brain works.
“From much experience I came to realize thinking is bullshit”
No arguing there. It’s just that some bullshit is more real than other bullshit.
“How do I explain this to a rationalist?”
I never claimed to be a rationalist. I have an open mind towards all concepts, old and new. But some notions are wrong and some are correct. The criteria I place for this is a correspondence to physical reality.
“Let’s agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be”
😛
Yup
“Since free will is based on physical reality, at least one of the theories is incorrect.”
Of course one of them is incorrect, but you have no way of finding out, because they correspond 100% with reality. If you disregard that possibility, then you must prove me that you can guarantee that there is just one possible explanation for everything which will lead to a correspondence of 100%. If you cannot do that, you have to admit that science is not about truth. It is at best a way to seek answers about HOW our physical reality works, but not why it works.
“but not why it works.”
With why I don’t mean purpose, but the real cause of things happening in our physical reality. While science can just look at symptoms and try to deduce laws through those, it doesn’t mean that the real cause (or laws) can ever be known.
“Since free will is based on physical reality, at least one of the theories is incorrect.”
I might have misphrased that. To be more precise, I meant one of them is incomplete (as in not 100% correspondent to physical reality).
Theory A predicts physical reality with free will. Theory B predicts physical reality without free will. Because the existence of free will is part of physical reality, one of the theories is complete, and the other one isn’t.
A theory that is 100% correspondent to reality incorporates all of reality, including the existence or not of free will. If a second theory claims something is wrong with the first one’s predictions, they predict different physical realities.
Hence both theories cannot be complete.
“The real cause of of reality can never be known”
I’ve already explained that causes are human constructs that apply to human interactions. The universe has no “cause” because it doesn’t require one. It exists whether you accept it or not. Your causes are unnecessary to it.
Heh this was the longest discussion ever here, and we went nowhere with it :).
“Hence both theories cannot be complete.”
Sure, but you can’t determine which is the complete one, that was my point.
When can you speak of physical laws, and when can you speak of free will? Why does a stone have no free will and acts as predicted, while about a human being it is said it posseses a free will. Does that make sense to you?
“Sure, but you can’t determine which is the complete one”
Of course you can! Physical realities can be verified through experiment. Both theories claim to be complete, but only one is 100% in correspondence to reality, whether it predicts free will or not.
“Why does a stone have no free will and acts as predicted, while a human being is said to possesses a free will? Does that make sense to you?”
Yes it does. Stones have no internal representation of reality, humans do.
The stone has no ability for self organization. Humans do. They copy reality into their minds and they then have the ability to organize and manipulate that structure. It’s the qualities of each system that differentiate them. You have free will exactly because you are not hardwired, physically or genetically into specific decisions.
You should watch this excerpt out of the movie “Waking Life” (which is a really good movie btw)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U
It is surprising, how well it fits into this discussion.
Also I don’t think you can measure free will. It is speculation. The only thing that seems to enable free will scientifically is quantum physics, every other model isn’t suited for the concept of free will. But also with quantum physics it’s not really convincing how that is enabling free will, as those rules also apply to every other physical phenomenon, which would mean that even stones have a “free will” of some sorts. Thats why I came up with that example in my other comment.
“Physical realities can be verified through experiment.” Yes, but you can’t verify the underlying cause. How will you know whether everything is deterministic or whether there is free will? Yeah, let’s experiment. In the end it is still speculation.
“The only thing that seems to enable free will scientifically is quantum physics”
Quantum mechanics allows for uncertainty, probability.
I think we need to clear the waters here and define free will. Free will is the ability to override your genetic or social programming. You can’t override the laws of the universe, so you are forever stuck between determinism and probability. But as I said, intelligence is the use of probability to your benefit. Free will stems from manipulating randomness.
“You can’t verify the underlying cause”
If everything is deterministic, all perfect clones of a person will act the same under the same set of circumstances. We don’t have the capacity for such an experiment yet, but hey, we didn’t know DNA existed until some 30 years ago. Scientific capabilities expand over time.
So, chill out. Free will exists and it has a physical manifestation.
I think that sciense is a way to truth, but sciense can’t do it on its own because it can’t be sure that there is only “physical” reality. I think there are several roads to understanding the matter of surounding things (read finding the truth) that shoud be walked at the same time. And almost all of this alternative roads are “self-living” and do not need any evidence of it’s a reality (or part of it), as bigbossSNK said about Universe. Your questions like “why is”, “what is” do not really matter, the point is to understand ALL if you say about truth, not that part that you can question about and find an answer. But questing questions moves you to truth and every answer to that questions , absolete or just fittable to reality, gives you a boost to other questions, which have their own answers too, that can do previous answers more proper or not. It’s just too complex if you walk The-One-Road, like sciense, which compares and corresponds.
I’m a student on physics faculty, and i can say that sciense is approximation to experiment. Yes, it is useful for living and IS exactly a part of way to truth, but it’s not absolete after all. The proper way to truth is ability to combine all things, all these roads together.
I’m agree with all sides
The universe has no “cause” because it doesn’t require one.
still it can be sayed about every physical manifestation, because all of them do an effect on physical bodies somehow:) the matter is that sciense is not for defining, but for understanding the mechanysm. That is not bad, it gives the opportunity to use physical world in different ways, and it gives the ground for new questions, which are the fuel to our truth-heading thing)
the problem is, there are much questions telling “what is”, and there’s no place for science. I’m really sorry for that but its even more interesting after all)
Einstein said that imagination is more important than thinking or something like that. It’s because he made the theory of relativity in his head, imagining it. He used science just to prove it.
This is where many people confuse things. Science doesn’t really discover anything. Science is a tool for measuring if the discovery is useful, by somehow defining reality and checking if it corresponds to that definition. But the actual finding of the truth takes place somewhere else, by means of a different tool.
Cranky: Waking Life is a very fun film to watch. I’ve actually had dreams where I knew I was dreaming but couldn’t wake up! Just like “reality” :DD.
“Free will is the ability to override your genetic or social programming. You can’t override the laws of the universe, so you are forever stuck between determinism and probability.”
I don’t get what you mean by that. The way I understand determinism is, that there is no space for free will. The way you define free will it doesn’t have to do anything with freedom at all. What about your concept of “free will” is free?
My definition of free will would be something that doesn’t have a cause itself, which makes it free and independend and thus enables real decision making.
Your “free will” isn’t free because if physical reality is deterministic, you can predict how a set genetic or social programming will alter itself in some set circumstances. But you can’t predict free will per se. So, if I understand you correctly, you don’t even think that humans decide for their own?
Michal:
I love that film. It was also that movie that introduced me into lucid dreaming, since then I had 2-3 lucid dreams since I watched that film back in 2001. Those were the best dreams I ever had. Also the ideas discussed in the film are really interesting.
I also agree with you on your views on science.
A lot of scientists (if not all) don’t refer to science as if it was being the truth. They talk of paradigms, the book by Kuhn that introduced this word was the most cited book back when it was released.
“Science doesn’t really discover anything. The actual finding of the truth takes place somewhere else, with another tool”
Of course. What part of science we already know has already been discovered, by people before us. It’s up to us to use creative thinking to find the missing puzzle piece, even if it means destroying some of the pieces we have now.
Science and creative thinking are anything but exclusive. The greatest thinkers have always been scientists.
“My definition of free will would be something that doesn’t have a cause itself, which makes it free and independend and thus enables real decision making.”
Yep, that’s pretty much it. But it’s still physical.
Cranky: Lucid dreams are one of the most amazing things. It is an experience that lets you see you are actually dreaming ALL the time. Your brain just decides which reality to impose on you, the real reality or the dream reality. It is something you can’t intelectualize, you have to see for yourself.
“Lucid dreaming allows you to see you are actually dreaming ALL the time”
No it doesn’t. During lucid dreaming, most thought processes are active, but a lot of the brain’s functions are disabled (motor functions, sensory input to some extend etc.) During a lucid dream you experience and interact with the reality your brain creates. During the awake state, you live in the physical reality we all share, and the brain is limited to that.
“Lucid dreaming is something you can’t intellectualize, you have to see for yourself”
I don’t see what the big hurdle in intellectualizing lucid dreaming is. It’s an experience you can both live AND study, through MRIs – brain scans etc.
Oh, and if you liked “Waking life”, you might also like “A scanner darkly”, the director’s Philip K. Dick adaptation.
heh.. this discussion is like how to nail a glass to the wall. You can’t do it only with nail and hammer, nor with bolt and screwdriver, there has to be something to do a hole in that glass first
“Lucid dreaming allows you to see you are actually dreaming ALL the time”
No it doesn’t. During lucid dreaming, most thought processes are active, but a lot of the brain’s functions are disabled (motor functions, sensory input to some extend etc.)
A real lucid dream is as real as reality. So what that the brain functions are disabled if you have the illusion you can do everything. You know that it is a dream but it doesn’t really change much because you can try to wake up but it is impossible, you might try to prove that it is a dream but your proofs will fail.
Isn’t it interesting that the brain can just shut off functions and you’re in a dream instead of reality? Don’t you think the brain can do this all the time, even when you’re awake, place an illusion in front of your eyes to blind you from the truth?
“Don’t you think the brain can do this all the time, even when you’re awake, place an illusion in front of your eyes to blind you from the truth?”
Yes it can, and it does. I’s called mania, and it’s main symptoms are hallucinations and delusions. The difference between lucid dreaming and mania is that you know you are dreaming while having the dream. If your brain suddenly tried to impose it’s own reality on you without your knowledge, that would be a hallucination, or a delusion.
So if you deny that you’re having hallucinations you’re a maniac?
What if I tell you the reality you have in front of your eyes is your dream, your illusion? You’ll deny it…
“So if you deny that you’re having hallucinations you’re a maniac?”
To the person having a hallucination, the hallucination is as real as the rest of his world. He cannot deny the hallucination because he cannot distinguish it from the rest of his reality.
“What if I tell you the reality you have in front of your eyes is your dream, your illusion? You’ll deny it…”
It can’t be an illusion because it is too complex to be one. The human mind is only capable of a limited amount of genius thought on it’s own. The human brain has a huge capacity for storing data, but only a limited capacity for connecting all this data on it’s own. If this were an illusion, I’d have to have come up with Einstein’s theory myself, attribute it to some german physicist I made up, then also invent the Internet in my head and all the ideas behind any subject I’ve ever come across.
The brain’s capacity for creative thinking is the physical barrier to your argument.
Everything a human does is instinct, also the machinery noticed by MM,
as an example, love, why would we fall in love with someone? its just another human? its because, we need follow-uppers, we need children, who keep the huge machine alive, its instinct, its the instinct that makes us fall in love and create children.
we dont control ourselves, everything is for a reason.
why are we eating? if we didnt we would “die a premature death ”
why do we keep moving? We need to maintain our goals we keep for our eyes, we need to achieve it, so we have got to keep going.
i totally agree with MM, a human is a machine, it must do what must be done, and what must done to keep the machine alive and working.
“Everything a human does is instinct”
Just plain wrong. All your actions aren’t instinctual. You can work outside your programming. As I said many times in this thread, your over simplified theory of “humans act only on instinct” doesn’t explain why a drug addict battles his addiction. His instinct tells him to use the drug, but chooses not to.
“I totally agree with MM, a human is a machine”
After a machine reaches a level of complexity that allows self-organization, it can transcend the limitations of it’s biological or social programming.
G.O.D. :
Yes the human is a machine. A lot of things like love are instincts, but please don’t think there is something wrong with it. Just accept this fact, this human condition as you might call it. You cannot fight it (and there really isn’t a reason to do that) but you can gain control over it. Like bigbossSNK wrote, you can overcome the limitations. This post tells you exactly how to do that.
…and I wouldn’t call it “limitations”. If you’re ignorant you call instincts like that. Once you gain some control over it you will call it PURE POWER. It is raw energy which you can use in a variety of ways. It’s like you have those old animal parts in you and you can unleash them. Like the Amazon shamans, you can become a bear or a monkey and use its powers. This is also why I’m opposed to rational thinking, because it is just a recent human invention. There is stuff inside of you that is infinitely more powerful and useful in the real world. Millions of years of evolution and experience are inside of you, you just have to know how to use it, how to let it work for you.
“This is also why I’m opposed to rational thinking, because it is just a recent human invention”
Nah, you’re opposed to rational thinking cause I kick your ass in it 😛
“There is stuff inside of you that is infinitely more powerful and useful in the real world”
Maybe when we were a group of hunters. Today we live in the information age. Considering the problems we face today, rational thought is much more important.
“Millions of years of evolution and experience are inside of you, you just have to know how to use it, how to let it work for you.”
Millions of years of evolution have lead to rational thinking. That’s why it’s the crown jewel of human features and much more important than anything else.
bigbossSNK: Nah, you’re opposed to rational thinking cause I kick your ass in it
That’s what you say, I would kick your ass for real if we met, who would win then?:)
Today we live in the information age. Considering the problems we face today, rational thought is much more important.
Maybe for you. I live in a world of people and I have to deal with them everyday. There is no use of logic there, because people are emotional beings not logical ones, try talking to a girl with your philosophies and reasoning.
Millions of years of evolution have lead to rational thinking. That’s why it’s the crown jewel of human features
This is where we disagree. I don’t place any significant value to it, it’s just a tool.
im working on my site now for reasoning but for now lets keep it on these kinds of posts,
MM you tell me: there is a power to overcome instincts,
is that considered a purpose or a goal? cause that would made it an instinct too, an instinct of becoming better then the original human, perfecting the machine while rebuilding it, dont consider me stupid saying this.
everything a human does is “programmed” action->reaction
we can come up with ideas, but its not power, its instinct, to complete the machine, we need comfort, so the machine has less work, BUT still gets its job finished, there is no such thing as “infinitly power” or “a stronger power” its the instinct to become better then what you are, or what you consider: Evolution
sorry for double post:
please comment quickly : my email , feel free to email 😛 :
Rick_online_zero@hotmail.com
If you interpret evolution as an instinct, as a power, then yes we are programmed to do this. We are still evolving and gaining control over old animal parts. It is one of the ways for human beings to become better.
I personally believe humankind is heading into space and all that is happening is leading us to that goal. Nature wants more life, and it wants to get out of earth. We’re a tool for that.
So becoming better is not really your purpose, but natures purpose. Sounds
bad?
Well I found out that there is no reason to oppose nature . So make evolutionary goals your own goals. It makes things much more easier and pleasant.
“I would kick your ass for real if we met, who would win then?”
How much do you weigh?
“I don’t place any significant value to rational thinking, it’s just a tool”
You already have, by admitting it a tool.
“try talking to a girl with your philosophies and reasoning”
I could, but my decree of 1:1 correspondence to reality has taught me not to mix business with pleasure. Rational thinking gets boring, unless you ‘re have a boxing match with it.
“everything a human does is “programmed” action->reaction”
Explain how a drug addict is programmed to go cold turkey and defeat his addiction, then.
“So becoming better is not really your purpose, but nature’s purpose. So make evolutionary goals your own goals”
Purposes and goals are human constructs. Nature has no purposes or goals.
How much do you weigh?
90kg of muscle:).
Explain how a drug addict is programmed to go cold turkey and defeat his addiction, then.
When there is a certain life threat to the organism it stops the addiction. It’s all about balance, cons and pros. The drugs give the organism benefits but after some time, the cons outwiegh the pros. When the organism sees that it starts fighting the addiction naturally. Sometimes it is too late, sometimes it looks like the person has “will power” and he defeats the addiction.
Addiction is also a human construct. The organism certainly does not see stuff like that.
“90kg of muscle”
I’m 85kg myself. When did you start pumping weights?
“Sometimes it is too late, sometimes it looks like the person has “will power” and he defeats the addiction.”
Nope. See, the level of addiction can be measured. Your model doesn’t explain why people with the same levels of addiction (and same damage to the body) show differences in behavior. Some overcome their addiction, some regress to it.
“Addiction is also a human construct. The organism certainly does not see stuff like that.”
The word addiction is a human construct. But the physical reality it relates to under the medical definition (hormone, neurotransmitter levels etc.) is certainly recognized by the body.
I’m 85kg myself. When did you start pumping weights?
1.5 years ago. Let’s stop discussing and wrestle :D.
Nope. See, the level of addiction can be measured. Your model doesn’t explain why people with the same levels of addiction (and same damage to the body) show differences in behavior. Some overcome their addiction, some regress to it.
Exactly because it is a hormonal, neurotransmitter issue. Every person has different tolerance for neurochemicals, like some get easily high on coffee others don’t get high from pot (that’s me) but others are the opposite. The level of tolerance is how the body recognizes the chemicals and uses them.
What is your theory of why people fight addictions, is it will power? Or like the AA people like to explain it a divine intervention?
talking to a girl over reasoning, is like, talking to a wall sometimes :L:L
i had a talk with one of my colleques at work today, one of them made me think about my theory again: If evolution is an instinct, why didnt we evolve at a certain point, since 1750 ( ? ) the human stopped evolving physicly, but more in mind, ( internet etc ) to comfort. Why would that be?
“What is your theory of why people fight addictions, is it will power?”
The ability to fight addiction is governed by these factors:
Genetics: Addiction predisposition to specific chemical agent, tolerance to specific agent, genetic pain threshold, neurotransmitter and hormone production capability
Social: Availability of addictive agent, social outcasting of addicts
What we call will power: Manipulation of neurotransmitter levels to boost temporary pain threshold, neuron reinforcement of pain tolerance pathways, autonomous dopamine secretion.
“AA people like to explain it as divine intervention”
AA people suck my cock
lolz,
ive got another one: Whats the Reason of Life?
my thoughts :
1. to feel how its like losing everything when you die
2. using the world up and destroy it like a virus
seriously, translate this in dutch for me someone
i can read it but my bro wants to read it too
I did this IQ test last week, as a result it seemed i think logicial instead of proofable, does this make me a “bad functional machine”or is this one of those “borders” i have to cross to come up with my human theories?
( my iq is 148 )
Another thing was: i think 20( O_o ) times faster then a normal human being, when the questioner was still on half of the question, i could answer it.
what kind of programming would that be?
-listen-
-interrupt-
-answer not fully heared question-
talking to a girl over reasoning, is like, talking to a wall sometimes :L:L
Exactly:), reasoning just doesn’t work in the real world.
bigbossSNK: I forgot what we were fighting over here.
G.O.D.:1. to feel how its like losing everything when you die
Haha that’s awesome. The masochist meaning of life.
what kind of programming would that be?
What do you mean what programming would that be?
“what kind of programming would that be?”
That’s not really programming, it’s input autocompletion. (The programming behind problem solving would be the same). A rudimentary form of it is used on your firefox search box.
How old are you if I may ask?
15 years old,
with the “programming” i was mentioning to the fact i answer question only asked me half
owyeah im dutch
thats one of my main problems here
“with the “programming” I was mentioning to the fact i answer question only asked me half”
Yeah, answering questions before they are already finished is called predictive input autocompletion. There’s not a lot of programming there, just a search function. The real programming lies in thinking about the answer.
“Thats one of my main problems here”
No one’s criticizing your use of English. English isn’t my native language either.
thanks for the nice words.
My theori about futuristic answering ( answering half spoken questions )
lies yet near one of my instinct evolution theories, cause, when i said it at school, more people mentioned it that one or more family members or known people have that “gift” , I think its the Evolution instinct of increasing our speed of deduction, and show ourselfes most commonly questions,
example, if you have a math test, the most logical questions are numeric questions : so:
how many would 2 + …………………… be?
you could guess whats in there, and for “speed thinkers” like me or other highly gifter or authistic people, we already start thinking to the rest of the question WHILE at the same time trying to solve a lot of math with the number 2.
My other guess for the evolution instinct has part in genetics and DNA, a nice theory of this will soon be available, im writing it in a Notepad.
It’s like when you hear the first few seconds of a song you can then replay it or sing from memory. Maybe it works in the same way.
But it could also be real precognition. I’ve had experiences of guessing numbers a person had in their mind before they said it.
“I’ve had experiences of guessing numbers a person had in their mind before they said it.”
sorry, but , were those more like, personal numbers?
just a question.
“But it could also be real precognition”
Oh, come on, you can’t be that naive. Precognition? What is this, the middle ages?
Yeah we are still in the middle ages.
How do you explain a situation when somebody is talking and then tells “..and guess how many of them there were?” and I would blurt out without thinking “13” and it was the exact number. Even if it is not precognition it is really funny and powerful.
Of course you may say it is a random event, but if you look it up, many people have the same experience.
same , but i just answer halfy answered questions
“Of course you may say it is a random event, but if you look it up, many people have the same experience.”
Of course it’s a random event. And of course people have similar experiences. Take Penn & Teller, they ‘ve been using routines that create the illusion of precognition for years. And they show you how it’s done. There’s no such thing as precognition. Physical reality doesn’t allow it.
If physcial reality is predetermined than precognition is easily explained. You just have to fast forward the simulation.
“If physcial reality is predetermined than precognition is easily explained|
Physical reality ISN’T predetermined. It can only be predetermined for a closed system with limited variables.
Physical reality is a closed system with limited variables.
You’ll have to prove that it is either an open system or it has an infinite number of variables.
What degree do you have in college?
Physical reality is a closed system with near unlimited variables.
Even by using the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox to acquire quantum measurements, the number of atoms in just one macroscopic object (like a single human hair) is too great to have any practical expectation for “limited” variables. We are talking about the present, not including as of yet unimplemented quantum computers.
same , but i just answer halfy answered questions
Is it just for math? You may have memorized a simple method of adding.
I think you’re absolutely right about it, we humans are state machines and as such we need to be absolutely sure about what we need to do, when we need to do it. To be more pratical, we need to actually start looking at our own computer network and assume the best scenarions possible. Think in outcome related ways, making progress towards goals are all fine and they cover half of the problem, but for deep down change we must tricle and change belief patters, its not an easy task but it can gradually be made. You can check around the web and find many examples of “Reframing” that can make this possible. Reframing is key.
Thanks for the post. Soldat fan here!
bigbossSNK:
“can you say something IS?”
Of course I can. It’s called physical reality. My kitchen table exists whether I think of it or not.
There you may be wrong, my friend.
Every heard of the cat-in-the-box experiment.
A cat is put into a box. While visible to confirm it is living and existing by a conscious being it is indeed alive.
When the box is closed, it is neither dead or alive; it both exists and doesn’t exist.
Mathematics prooves it!
It’s a section of quantum… check it out
“Schroedinger’s cat both exists and does not exist”
If you haven’t read quantum physics, don’t post about it. Schroedinger’s cat exists in a superposition of states, both alive and dead, until you make a measurement. It exists either way. Quantum physical realities are still physical realities.
It both exists and does not exist, but not simultaneously.
I read though a little quantum quite some time ago.
You have a solid scientific mind.. Do you believe in God?
“It both exists and does not exist, but not simultaneously.”
The question isn’t whether the cat exists or not. It exists. The only question is whether it is alive or not, and according to the Feynman interpretation, it can be both, simultaneously.
Other interpretations vary.
“Do you believe in God?”
Until I am shown some physical evidence of God’s existence or interference with the physical world, I will consider it an arbitrary sociological creation.
So going back, when there was nothing but space and energy, how did they come about?
Do you not conclude that something must have created this?
I use the word God lightly; I do not strictly identify it as a conscious entity. But I believe something must have created the building blocks of where we are now, even if it’ was merely a reaction. Something out of nothing – The ultimate question!
“Do you not conclude that something must have created this?”
Not necessarily. The Big Bang transformed energy to the form we know it today, but there can be other forms of energy (as within black holes). No creation necessary, just transformation between states of energy as we can understand them and not.
bigbossSNK is Light Yagami
Thanks, dude. I dig the cultural reference.
Michal, whens ur book coming :P? imma buy it for sure 😛
song texts…
Some hotels don’t conforms the descriptions, that is why real reviews of people who stayed there are very useful….
SOG knives…
Interesting ideas… I wonder how the Hollywood media would portray this?…
5qyarlwuq3g0r4fs
make a learning BOT, if he fires at a wall, insert a command / code he wont do that again, lets say,
if state dead
trace waypoints and actions
remove those actions or disallow them
im working on a bot that works that way
for so far he runs smooth, he killed himself a few times, but he’s learning now, if he kills someone or sees someone he uses his knowledge for the fastest way to there. The code is not free. il charge alot lol.
a learning bot
the problem in humanity is that yes we can program ourselfes, but we are restricted. we cannot do the unhuman nor can( i think the correct word is WILL ) we negate rules( humans strave to survival and pleasure, breaking the rules will result into problems, most people will disallow actions like that.)
I am still straving to make my own world, my own game world.
I have tons of respect for you, MM Sigvatr and WhiteNights.
Hey MM. I have a great book about (re)-programming yourself and to be succesfull. It’s very great and easy to read with a sense of humor also. It’s a book from Anthony robbins and the books name in dutch is: “Je ongekende vermogens: NLP de weg van excellentie” and i think this would be the name of the book in English: “Unleash the Power Within”. It’s a MUST read.
anonymous your an idiot, im dutch aswell,
the title would be ; Your unknown possibilities. The road to Perfection/Excellention.