Linden Prize! Exercise your mind.

[Keystone Gray]

Hey look buddy, I'm a Spy. That means I solve problems.

Not problems like "What is the magnitude of the induced emf εAB across the 17.8 turn at t = 1000s", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of scientific mathematics.

I solve simple problems!

For instance, "how am I going to stop some big mean mother-hubber from getting into the base and stealing my intel?".

The answer? Use a knife.

And if that don't work? Use more knife.

Like this carbon-steel, gold-plated lil' ole number attached by me...

Built by me...

And you best hope...

Not wielded by this guy.

[Tiridates Mikadze]

I am that guy.

Anyway, I'd say that mere physical reductionism of neurons, genetics, and brain chemistry alone cannot account for human behavior. In all my study, I've found that there's a bit of a wild card at play with humanity, that being it's ability to choose.

We are not determined by our genes, they define a certain number of parameters, all of which are important. However, they don't tell me left or right down a street, they don't tell me who I am. They may define what I am, to a point.

The human will, in that it interacts, shapes, and alters the material around it, be that material physical or of more elusive stuff, is an indication of the true potential that humanity holds.

And I'd point out that physics is a means, the meaning of it lies in the eye of the beholder, and that meaning is itself beyond physics.

[Aelus]

I'd say that mere physical reductionism of neurons, genetics, and brain chemistry alone cannot account for human behavior.

Much more intelligent and educated men than you and I believe in physical reductionism. Why is this a valid argument? Until your thought is intrinsically on their echelon your opinion is inherently meaningless. Is my opinion meaningful? Of course not, because I too am not nearly as intelligent as Gauss, Einstein, Faraday, or any number of men who did more in elementary school than I have in my whole life in terms of academia. This is why I don't even bother to argue my Lo-Fi opinion.

Why, then, am I dual-majoring in physics and chemical engineering? Simply because I seek the ability to manufacture a nanomachine that facilitates neural processing, protocol, and networking; this can potentially allow myself and others to have the ability to think on their level--and, perhaps, facilitate the assimilation of knowledge in the human race.

[Agares Tretiak]

The inherent mental capabilities of one individual do not negate the mental capabilities of another, Aelus, nor their arguments. Belief alone does not constitute proof of a concept. You need to provide empirical evidence. If you wish, you can use their arguments. But it's a poor debate if you say, "Far greater than you or I have debated this, and we are not worthy to even consider alternatives."

That sounds lazy to me.

[Scientific Waffle]

The reason there is such thing as "choice" from the perspective of physical reductionism is that at its most base level, particles become little more than what are called "waves of probability". This essentially means that in any given interaction between millions of particles and matter, there are trillions upon trillions of infinitesimal "coin tosses" which shift the way things react in the smallest of ways.

One way to think of this is as a road. Let's say, for a moment, that this road has 50 million forks in the road, representing two paths the car can go down. This leads to 2⁵⁰ possible positions for any given car to end at the conclusion of this series of forks.

What psychology and other similar studies generally do is they look at where the cars ended up if you send a large number of cars down this road (let's say, in our example, that 85% of all cars end up in the third of endpoints located most east). A field like psychology will then compare initial conditions at a macroscopic level (for example, that most cars drive at 30 mph and the roads are gravel roads), and turn this pattern of probability into a set of rules that generally predict the end result for any given car. The concept of choice with then manifest itself in the idea that any given car would "choose" its endpoint after all of these forks in the road.

The approach physics would take, however, would be to look at every single individual turn and determine how the cars end up taking one turn over another. A the decision reached by a human mind would be like sending 20 million cars through this series of roads, with the end pattern created by the car being the decision made by the brain. The sets of rules established by psychology will predict what the pattern generally is; all drivers might generally prefer to make a right turn over a left. A non-Materialist analysis of the end result might conclude that there's some greater force causing the end pattern to occur. A Materialist viewpoint, however, would be to say that the end pattern is the result of every car navigating through this series of roads. The behavior of some cars at certain turns might be predetermined, a physical law being the equivalent of a one-way sign or a detour in the road forcing all cars at that point to take a certain turn. Other instances of turn choice might be entirely random, just as the behavior of quantum particles often simply does reduce to sheer probability. Thus, from the Materialist's perspective, "free will" in the end was just the manifestation of the very much random and unpredictable aspect of the events at a small scale. Materialism does not dictate that everything is predetermined; there is actual randomness in the system. However, what the materialist states is that the end pattern of cars was the result of millions of cars making exponential numbers of turns.

I hope I didn't lose you in my extended metaphor, but the point I'm making is that it is human nature to judge incredibly complex interactions through a set of more macroscopic (and sometimes even nonexistent) factors. Physical reductionism does not deny choice or promote the idea of predetermination; what is does however identify is the nature of "free will" as a result of incredibly complex phenomena and probability. In my intellectual pursuits I have very much found that everything stems from tangible things; what we most commonly associate with being "beyond physics" is either macroscopic results of complex events or vague human mental associations conjured by our own minds to help us simplify and deal with the world around us.

[Tiridates Mikadze]

I'm not saying that physicalism is inherently disposed to determinism, despite the myriad of voices who've said so. What I am saying is that there is an element to human choice that cannot be accounted for entirely by observation of the physics ongoing in a human mind, we only see the results of it, rather than the internalization and subjective process that is on going. You're watching the boat move, but not seeing the engine working, or the pilot.

And again, there is the question of meaning, something that is again, beyond the realm of simply the physics. It tells us what, and how, but can provide us no other substance. Now, if we need further substance, or if it is a failing in our human view of physics that it cannot account for other factors, is a question itself that is somewhat beyond physics to answer. Physics, and Science in general exists to essentially achieve two goals: Determine the mechanics of the observable universe, and then how we can apply this, either practically or scholastically.

But Physics, nor the mathematics, are capable of observing the Universe of themselves, they are tools, lenses even, through which we view the material universe, and I'd even argue at this point, they are imperfect tools, at the hands of the Observers (us) and we're demonstrate-ably fallible, imperfect, and constantly biased. I would say that declaring there is only what we can observe of the Universe is easily flawed, in that we have no way of saying we're seeing all there is to the Universe. Doubt, be it in religious or in scientific faith, keeps us honest.*

I'm aware of the way in which possibilities open and close based on choices, and physical conditions and observable phenomena.

I'd have to agree with Agares, that was rather disappointing of you, Aelus.

Great men have proven how wrong they can be, time and time again, just as common men have, and just because some great men hold together in agreement doesn't mean we should believe it.

I'd rather question, even oppose, a view, and consider it as entirely as I can before I decide that one view or another is a less skewed vision of the Truth, or of reality.

*Note, this is simply a statement and argument I'm making of my own accord, and not one leveled at any of our participants in particular.

[Aelus]

Deepest regrets.

Great Gaussian-distribution explanation Waffle!

[Scientific Waffle]

Your idea that "meaning" is beyond physics is where we reach an impasse Tiridates, because I don't believe there is any actual overarching "meaning" to the universe. And as I've stated before, physics might not be flawed in its purest form, but humans always are in one way or another. Bias is an issue science must constantly grapple with.

As for Aelus, it was not purely an explanation of a Gaussian distribution, it was also a link between probability in physics and the concept of chance, choice, and free will. And your point as to "greater men", it was invalid from an ad hominid perspective, but the core idea that experts in various fields of the science do generally find that such phenomena have physical roots is true.

[Kellervo]

I'll put it this way:

This is what my brain is on this topic.

[Cygna]

I'll put it this way:

img

This is what my brain is on this topic.

Would go wonderful with some warm buttered toast, crispy bacon, and potatoe-y hash browns.

[Tiridates Mikadze]

If there is greater, or Universal meaning, or Truth, is something I cannot claim to have absolute belief in, all I can say is that I know absolutely what I believe. Meaning, even that we produce ourselves, I would argue has value, at least in potential.

Also, Keller, this is how I open most of my conversations face to face: "What do you think the value of *insert abstract concept here* is in our modern and frequently artificial society?" and then I like to argue with them for three hours.

In short, I eat this stuff for breakfast (much in the same way I eat scrambled eggs and waffles), I thrive on discussions and arguments over philosophy, metaphysics, religion, politics, the implications of technology, the potential of science, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[Kellervo]

I do admit it was rather entertaining to read, I just feel like some of it admittedly went soaring over my head. I tend to keep myself grounded more in 3d modelling and shader languages then in philosophy or mathematical equations (which is vaguely funny because shader programming does involve some mathematics).

[Agares Tretiak]

Waffle, you need to show me that it is electrons that determine the course of a thought, rather than a thought starting the course of an electron. It becomes nearly a paradoxical question, since there isn't any empirical proof to show it goes in either direction.

If the mind sets the electrons in motion, then thought and the essence of thought are something that comes from a physical environment, but the course is determined by the very purest form of will. In an amusing tangent, you could say this is the "mind over matter" theory.

If the electrons somehow trigger the process of thought, without any input from the will of a person, then you have your physical determinism theory, indicating a "matter over mind" theory.

Also, your 20 million cars theory doesn't work, since the human mind, unless willing to let the cars move of their own accord, will try to order the cars and make a system for interacting with them. Where there is seeming chaos, people will tend to try to organize and make it work within their perspective of how things should function according to their own individual method of thought. In short... the human mind attempts to order, categorize, and break down complex things into acceptable patterns and systems. Science, Mathematics, Logic, even History, Psychology, and Sociology are examples of this effort to examine, order, and control the physical universe from the human perspective.

This repeats itself over and over in the way we think. We don't accept that people just die from disease, we try to cure it. We don't just sleep under trees for shelter, we build houses to turn back the natural order and progress. All of these are triumphs and efforts of the human mind to not just understand the physical world, but use its own rules and systems to overcome their disadvantages.

As to meaning: People will provide a meaning. They always do. for some, it may just be a pursuit of knowledge, for others, it may be something more or less abstract to to them. That's what we're good at. Filling the spaces with things that suit our needs and desires.

[Aelus]

it was invalid from an ad hominid perspective, but the core idea that experts in various fields of the science do generally find that such phenomena have physical roots is true.

I don't see the ad hominem. Also, it's strikingly condemning that I need to explain my post; the three of you are either deeply frustrated by the fact that I was so blunt about human intelligence, or in denial. Either way it's a fact that most of the arguments posted in this thread are irrational and hypocritical as none of you(obviously me included, but I'm not arguing my opinion) have a full understanding of either side of the fence or the mental capacity to argue a side in a question of this calibre and magnitude. It would probably frustrate a person who does--that is, have extensive, arguable knowledge in both the humanities and physics as well as the ability to sew logic and intrinsic beauty in the unification of their arguments to others--if they were to read this thread.

In the thread: hypocrisy, psuedo-arguments, pre-graduate level physics, and mockery. Also, cocks.

Go back to school, the lot of you. When you have years of formal mind training, then you can argue such vastly complicated subjects without straying over the hypocrisy line.

Here, let me call your rationalizations/justifications before you post them:

-Either Tiridates or Agares will use some half-hearted argument with no evidence like "that's lazy lol we should continue to be hypocritical and irrational and pretend to argue with psuedo-science, magic, and our minuscule knowledge base in physics."

-One of you might say "no one ever got anywhere by simply keeping quiet about their opinions, that hinders advancement." I'm not advocating silence; I'm advocating knowledge among other vital peripherals of arguing a topic such as this.

-"You don't have to participate Aelus if you don't want to!" I'm not participating in the argument; also, this is my thread.

-"I have a decent understanding in both, isn't that sufficient?" For some lower calibre arguments, of course. This is like, THE argument. The one and only. In fact, this particular topic could eliminate religion's final justification.

-"We're not arguing, we're debating an intellectual issue of importance." See above.

-"What if one day my opinion is the scientifically accepted one?" Great, awesome, magnificent, brilliant. I doubt it.

-Waffle will explain what physics he understands. Granted, this knowledge base is very substantial, however not nearly as substantial as one needs for a question that will probably not be answered for at least another century.

-"I r disapoint." Me too.

-"Let's insult Aelus's rational post, c'mon guys."

Most intelligent, rational, non-hypocritical ideology yet: we keep our lo-fi opinions to ourselves, and try to learn more from those who can teach us; like, for instance, the ones who have years of formal training and have wrote numerous documents on the argument.

See: Scott Hughes, Stephen Hawking, Ray Kurzweil, Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Brian Greene, or any number of the leading intellectuals for more information. Oh wait, I would much rather know Tiridates Mikadze, Agares Tretiak, and Scientific Waffle's opinions.

[Tiridates Mikadze]

We're not trying to solve the issue, so much as we're learning about other people's views and having a discussion.

The argument "You shouldn't talk about it, discuss it, or argue over an issue until you are an expert" seems a little silly, since most experts become so by having discussions, arguments, and generally talking about a subject in order to introduce and consider new ideas, and then test them through a process of dialog and even experimentation.

Dialog is important, and as humble, lowly, and unlearned as we may be, it doesn't invalidate the importance of the dialog we are having. I doubt any of us have a definitive answer, or that any of us believe we know the whole of the issue. There is no hypocrisy to that end. But yeah, I'm disappointed that your argument boiled down to pretty much this: "These guys are experts and geniuses, we should believe what they say without examining it ourselves."

That constitutes essentially, blind faith. They're brilliant, intelligent people, without a doubt, but I have every right to discuss and argue the issue, and perhaps through that process, arrive to a new and more complete understanding. Making mistakes is part of learning, and while reading an argument is extremely useful, and important, don't discard the importance of the experience itself in the process of learning.

[Agares Tretiak]

So how about them Red Sox, eh?

[Cyphre Iredell]

Sadly you've still missed the point there Tiri, so here is an extreme example:

Two groups of people get separated deep within the heart of the wilderness, zero contact with the civilized world and little chance of survivval. One group consists of Tiri, Aelus and Agares, the other consists of Bear Grills, that other survivorman fellow (can't even remember now), and some random learning disabled person. Three weeks later with no outside contact, who do you think survives? Aelus, Tiri, and Agares? Or the learning disabled fellow who could have dialog with people who know what they are doing?

Because you see, three retards pondering the origins of our world or other advanced concept will never equate to research, development, and talking with people who actually have relevant input. If all you all majored in philosophy, what chance is there you will even vaguely understand the basics of calculus?

As much as you could have an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters with an infinite amount of time that could eventually type the collected works of Shakespeare, it would certainly be a lot easier to just read what he had already written to save a few steps. ;)

[Tiridates Mikadze]

Allow me to clarify: These are not issues of immediate universal practicality. They are not life or death. This is, however, one where there are several schools of thought, and each school has it's highly intelligent, brilliant champions. Adler, and Frankl were both opponents of reductionism in efforts to explain human behaviors, and I hardly doubt anyone here would consider them idiots, and that's just two off the top of my head. I highly doubt I'll go on to found a field of psychoanalysis, or perhaps ever contribute something of note to it's study and research, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't discuss and consider the issue with other people.

Your analogy is flawed. Bear Grills and his friend are more likely to survive, but the basics of survival are the same everywhere. Three intelligent, rational individuals working together should be able to increase their chances of survival working together far better than they would alone, or if they were mentally incapable.

And again, we're not wandering through a minefield, we're discussing a matter of philosophical debate, one that is hotly contested by a fair number of experts, like leading neurologists, psychologists, biochemists, geneticists, and physicists, and on all sides of the issue.

Debate has long been a means of broadening the horizons and expanding the understanding of individuals, and I doubt that any of the proclaimed experts, geniuses, or professionals would come along and condemn us simply for discussing the issue. They might condemn, attack, or disagree with our particular arguments, they might defend them, but that's not what's important, what is important is that we have the dialog, and perhaps come away enriched by it.

Anything less could easily be mistaken for intellectual cowardice, especially if I wasn't willing, or eager, to go to an expert and discuss it with them, but believe me, I am. I'd be delighted to probe and ask questions of them, just as I am eager to ask these questions of any person. I've discussed the issue with my professors, I've discussed it with priests and atheists, I've discussed it with my doctor. And every time, I've come away with a more nuanced understanding of the issue, and understood the arguments a bit better of both sides.

There is also the issue of what would constitute expertise in this instance, as well. If you want to use your survival argument, would a physicist be able to help out more than Bear Grills? We have to consider the nature of expertise as well, so, would a physicist rely more on physics to explain an issue, or would they consider other avenues and possibilities first? What would a neurologist say?

Or a Psychiatrist? Or a philosopher? Hell, what would a theologian say?

But you're right. I shouldn't be worrying about this, I should simply keep my mouth shut, and do what I'm told by a specific set of specialists. I'll be sure to bear that in mind next time I'm voting, or tying my shoes, or deciding what to read at the library.

[Aelus]

Debate has long been a means of broadening the horizons and expanding the understanding of individuals, and I doubt that any of the proclaimed experts, geniuses, or professionals would come along and condemn us simply for discussing the issue. They might condemn, attack, or disagree with our particular arguments, they might defend them, but that's not what's important, what is important is that we have the dialog, and perhaps come away enriched by it.

There was once a time when literacy was rare, this was the birth of religion. Most intellectuals who are educated in both fields would probably find this thread frustrating and ignorant.

Anything less could easily be mistaken for intellectual cowardice, especially if I wasn't willing, or eager, to go to an expert and discuss it with them, but believe me, I am.

I'm an 'intellectual coward' because I like to educate myself about topics before spewing my opinions.

I'll be sure to bear that in mind next time I'm voting, or tying my shoes, or deciding what to read at the library.

I can't stress enough how good it if everyone made educated decisions.

[Tiridates Mikadze]

Education takes many forms, as I pointed out, and dialog with peers is one of them.

Through such a dialog some of us might be motivated to learn more on the subject, and in areas we had not previously considered.

All in all, I still find your objection to this discussion unfortunate, if not puzzling.

It's a time honored, and proven method (at least as old as the Greek Academies), and again, I honestly doubt any expert would sneer at us for having such a dialog.

The wonderful thing is, you can share your opinion, and as you come upon new ideas, and information, change your opinion. And by voicing your thoughts, you can put them through a crucible, in essence experimenting on and with your opinion. There is not one thing wrong in having the discussion, even when we're mere neophytes.

Silence has it's place, as does research, but learning to apply it is vital to any greater understanding.

[Scientific Waffle]

To Aelus: I meant Ad hominid in the broader sense of the term meaning that you were advancing an argument by showing the virtues of the ones arguing it rather that the virtues of the argument itself. You did have a valid point, you were just edging on dangerous waters.

And in terms of the "chicken and egg" argument Agares makes with thoughts and electrons... the way science works is that you prove things to be so, and need not prove things to not be so. We can see direct relationships between electro-chemical neural activity and thought, and there exists plausible hypotheses supported by evidence which explain the causual relationship between neural activity and thought, not the other way around.

And yes, Tiridates is correct. Debate and discussion between individuals of all levels of expertise is a time tested tradition and learning process. To accept the word of a scientist or physicist blindly because society tells you he is an expert is no better than doing likewise with a holy man. In my eyes, it is better to arrive through one's own thought at the wrong conclusion than it is to be a correct sheep.

[RazorFox]

One of you math geniuses please solve this for me, it was on Look Around You tonight.

Queen Elizabeth III, Queen Elizabeth IV, and Queen Elizabeth V are all going to a party.

Queen Elizabeth III has 40 dresses to wear to the party. Queen Elizabeth IV has 4,000 dresses. Queen Elizabeth V has 1 dress, but it can change into the shape of any dress imaginable.

During the night before the party, Queen Elizabeth IV sends a spy to steal patterns for all 40 of Queen Elizabeth III's dresses and has her tailor make exact replicas of them through the night.

What are the odds that all three of them will be wearing the same dress to the party?

EXTRA CREDIT: How many times can Queen Elizabeth V's dress change shape before it overheats?

[Nakita]

Edited May 5, 2009 by Intus Infinity

[Cyphre Iredell]

The analogy dealing with a life or death situation only relates to two extremes, as the context of an analogy has no bearing on the proposed end result. Nobody needs clarification because the discussion what is being pointed out is that dialog does not constitute research. It advances nothing if everybody talks about what they already know. Lets put it another way: in school, we learn by reading books (doing 'exercises' and any other manner of feats related to what is written in the textbook), and this book was written by someone (or some collective organization) that already knows everything that is in this book for it to be written. What is written on separate pages cannot necessarily be debated by two or more people because they simply need to read the other pages not yet read; so that everyone is on the same page, so to speak.

OH GOD ZRAZOE! Don't ask that bonus question! Otherwise they'll need other info to determine its heat dissapation, and others laws of thermodynamics on dresses! D: