| Sheldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkmouse
Perhaps one reason why no formal measurements of these tweaks would show an improvement in noise figures is that they don't actually need to decrease noise to work...;) |
So a certain amount of noise would establish the neurological equivilant of the optimum bias current?
Sheldon |
|
|
| pinkmouse |
| It makes a little more sense to me as a mental model if you compare it to HF bias in magnetic tape recording, (but I do know that it is really nothing like that...:) ). |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip]Holy geez, I just checked out Lux in the CIA factbook ..... you guys have an average GDP of $55,000 per capita! You're buying! |
We do? We are? Why didn't they tell me??
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkmouse
Perhaps one reason why no formal measurements of these tweaks would show an improvement in noise figures is that they don't actually need to decrease noise to work...;) |
Fascinating article!
I can relate to it, I have been reading a collection of articles from IRCAM, the French research institute for music and perception. There were some experiments where a tone was masked and could not be perceived, until some noise was added, and suddenly the previously masked tone stood out like a sore thumb. Fascinating indeed.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| FrankWW |
I googled ' "stochastic resonance" hearing'. Busy field.
| quote: | Applied Mathematics [>] Information Theory [v]
Stochastic Resonance
A stochastic resonance is a phenomenon in which a nonlinear system is subjected to a periodic modulated signal so weak as to be normally undetectable, but it becomes detectable due to resonance between the weak deterministic signal and stochastic noise. The earliest definition of stochastic resonance was the maximum of the output signal strength as a function of noise (Bulsara and Gammaitoni 1996).
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images...es/see_also.gif> Kramers Rate, Noise
[Links] search |
| quote: | The Stochastic Resonance phenomenon
Since its introduction over ten years ago [see bibliography], stochastic resonance (SR) has become very popular in many fields of natural science as a paradigm which epitomizes noise-controlled onset of order in a complex system.
Although in the recent literature the notion of SR gained broader significance, the archetype of SR models is represented by a simple symmetric bistable process x(t) driven by both an additive random noise, for simplicity, white and gaussian, and an external sinusoidal bias. On keeping the forcing amplitude and frequency fixed, the amplitude of the periodic component of the process, x, grows sharply with the noise intensity until it reaches a maximum and, then, decreases slowly according to a certain power-law.
It was initially suggested that such a behavior results from the attuning of a deterministic with a stochastic time scale, that is, the forcing period To and the switching time T(D) of the un-biased bistable process x(t), respectively. |
http://www.umbrars.com/sr/introsr.htm
Mini review article here:
http://eaps4.iap.tuwien.ac.at/~gebe...ems_CSF2000.pdf
Jan Didden reported:
| quote: | There's an interesting test I read in a French book from IRCAM (the perception lab near Paris) with masking, now that you mention it.
I don't recall all the exact details, but it's like this: You generate a tone and an harmonic in a certain ratio. Then you add a third tone, not harmonically related. If the ratio of the third tone is not above a certain level, the listener does not hear it, it is masked by the carrier and the harmonic, he just hears the two harmonics.
Now comes the clincher: You add low level broad band noise, without changing anything else to the set-up, and Bingo! the listener reports hearing THREE tones, the harmonics and the third non-harmonic one.
Can you believe that: you add noise and as a result you hear more separate frequencies. Who said hearing perception was simple and straight-forward? |
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...t=&pagenumber=9
(post #89)
I also added to the google search within results, 'music'.
Found this interesting article
Illusions and ghost resonances: how we could see what isn't there
http://www.apkarianlab.nwu.edu/~dchialvo/upon2002.pdf
| quote: | Snip:
"Despite important advances, is still not well understood what a sensory neuron encodes. How to be certain that a given spike-train from a sensory neuron is encoding
a particular aspect of the physical world? In this contribution we choose to discuss this aspect by way of an example in which the brain reads something that objectively isn't
there ? The unsolved problem is how the brain extracts the pitch of complex sounds, and the solution proposed is a stochastic nonlinear mechanism which is biologically
plausible. Work in this problem can be traced back to Pythagoras...." |
Heavy Duty!:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/9810/9810019.pdf
Sounded to me like dither. So I searched ' "stochastic resonance" dither '. Found some stuff:
This one is interesting:
http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/...nell_SPIE03.pdf| quote: | ABSTRACT
Consider an array of threshold devices, such as neurons or comparators, where each device receives the same input signal, but is subject to independent additive noise. When the output from each device is summed to
give an overall output, the system acts as a noisy Analog to Digital Converter ( ADC) . Recently, such a system was analyzed in terms of information theory, and it was shown that under certain conditions the transmitted
information through the array is maximized for non-zero noise. Such a phenomenon where noise can be of bene t in a nonlinear system is termed Stochastic Resonance ( SR) . The e ect in the array of threshold devices
was termed Suprathreshold Stochastic Resonance ( SSR) to distinguish it from conventional forms of SR, in which usually a signal needs to be subthreshold for the e ect to occur. In this paper we investigate the e ciency of
the analog to digital conversion when the system acts like an array of simple neurons, by analyzing the average distortion incurred and comparing this distortion to that of a conventional ash ADC. |
This is the one that makes the psycho/physical connection:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~cgseife/PRL01186.pdf
It appears we've been in this territory before:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-19973.html
Lord! I LOVE the internet!
Jan, I see we crossed paths here |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by FrankWW
[snip]Jan, I see we crossed paths here |
Indeed. I am very interested in these things. After all, you can get only so much satisfaction out of the umpteenth power amp:D
What fascinates me even more than how this encoding stuff works is how all the strands are pulled together in the mind. That is literally mind-boggling!
It has been argued that the bandwidth of our sensory input channels amount to about a megabit per second, but that the concious mind can handle only about between 10 to 50 BITS per sec (depending on who you read, but nobody goes over 100).
So there is a lot of what one writer calls EXformation going on: Amalgamating and throwing away of INformation to make the 'picture' digestable to the concious mind.
But your brain is continously processing the information; it is like a continous film strip, with the concious mind like a window sliding over the film focusing its attention on this, then that, part of the picture. No wonder conciousness sometimes misses something significant.
That also means that the brain can (and will) continue to work on a problem you gave it, even when you are concious of something else and 'forgot' that problem. Until all of a sudden you wake up with the solution clearly before you. Aren't humans absolutely wonderfull?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | So there is a lot of what one writer calls EXformation going on: Amalgamating and throwing away of INformation to make the 'picture' digestable to the concious mind. |
Fascinating indeed...
This is exactly what I like so much in certain jazz music: it can suggest sooo much to the mind that's never being played, only we imagine it being there.
Next time you listen you would sometimes think you hear other things that aren't there either.
Very powerful stuff...
| quote: | | Until all of a sudden you wake up with the solution clearly before you. Aren't humans absolutely wonderfull? |
Absolutely.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Fascinating article!
I can relate to it, I have been reading a collection of articles from IRCAM, the French research institute for music and perception. There were some experiments where a tone was masked and could not be perceived, until some noise was added, and suddenly the previously masked tone stood out like a sore thumb. Fascinating indeed.
Jan Didden |
This article comes to mind posted previously in Y B Blue thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/atta...s=&postid=64650 |
|
|
| FrankWW |
speaking of amplifiers....
I'd sure appreciate it if someone who really knows their stuff could comment on this article.
It appears that the note we hear but which is not played has its electronic analogue:
[quote]Experimental evidence of "ghost" stochastic
resonance in an electronic circuit
Abstract. We demonstrate experimentally the regime of ghost stochastic resonance
in the response of a Monostable Schmitt-Trigger electronic circuit driven by noise and
signals with N frequencies components: kf0 +?f , (k+ 1) f0 +?f , :::k +nf0 +?f with
k > 1. At the frequency for which the resonance is maximum there is no input energy,
thus this form is called "ghost" stochastic resonance. It is verified that stochastic
resonance occurs at the frequency fr = f0 + ?f k+( N ? 1) =2 , as predicted in the theory.[quote]
Note the adobe conversion program does not convert the the math symbols from PDF into HTML properly
http://www.apkarianlab.nwu.edu/~dchialvo/ghostnew.pdf
This is a companion article to the one I referenced in my previous post:
Illusions and ghost resonances: how we could see what isn't there
http://www.apkarianlab.nwu.edu/~dchialvo/upon2002.pdf
A better version of it is this:
"How we hear what isn't there: A neural mechanism for the missing fundamental illusion" Chialvo DR. (Chaos, December 2003)
http://www.imedea.uib.es/~dchialvo/...003-chialvo.pdf |
|
|
| Prune |
| Just a short note concerning the last link: as neuroscience papers go, Chialvo's seems pretty light on experimental evidence (with the exception of Fig.4). I'm not criticising his theory; I'm just saying that in order to show it has any value versus the rest, it needs evidence showing it is a better fit, otherwise it is but speculation. As it stands, I do not think it would have been accepted by a serious neuroscience journal (non-linear science journals like Chaos obviously have different criteria, but do not forget that he's proposing a neurological model here and should be judged from that point of view). |
|
|
| FrankWW |
| quote: | | As it stands, I do not think it would have been accepted by a serious neuroscience journal |
Yeah, I wondered about that but it seems a lot of neurological models are being published in things like engineering journals.
The article is slight but then I'm not sure it has to be otherwise. The older experimental data does fit to his theory and I get the feeling, looking at his bibliography, that's all he cares about.
Anyway its just speculation on my part but I have a feeling, not a strong one but it's there, that some of these guys might not want to see him back very soon:
http://www.imedea.uib.es/%7Edchialv...999-chialvo.pdf
With regard to High Fidelty I'm getting spooked. The only part of the reproduction which should be legitimately non linear is my hearing and it turns out all the other parts, including the room, can be that way.:bigeyes::bigeyes: |
|
|
| Prune |
I don't see how the learning mechanism he presents fits within the established model of spike timing dependent plasticity of neurons (STDP is an experimental fact, by the way). Of course, not all neural circuits in the brain use STDP, as tends to be the case with this in most respects, so the proposed mechanism may work in specific neural systems, rather than being the general learning mechanism he seems to imply.
Looks like this guy was at Santa Fe. That's not an institution for exactly mainstream science (and I mean that in a bad way). |
|
|
| geoffkait |
"Looks like this guy was at Santa Fe. That's not an institution for exactly mainstream science (and I mean that in a bad way)."
On the other hand, Niels Bohr Inst. ain't exactly Podunk U.
Speaking of neural theories and such, a bit surprised noone has mentioned Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
Speak of the devil, I just noticed the following event taking place 12 Oct:
2nd October 2004
Rupert Sheldrake Online
<a href="http://www.sheldrake.org"> http://www.sheldrake.org </a>
L10
RESEARCH SEMINAR WITH RUPERT SHELDRAKE
Tuesday Oct 12, in London.
Rupert writes:
I will be holding a workshop on Tuesday Oct 12 at my home in Hampstead
on research on the Extended Mind. I will discuss recent developments
and plan to try out a series of new experiments on the sense of being
stared at, and also on telepathy. Some of these tests have never been
tried out in a group setting before. They are simple, fun to do and may
also help you to develop your psychic sensitivity. No previous
experience is required.
So please come and take part if you can, and spend a day helping to
pioneer the frontiers of research.
The workshop will be from 10 am to 5 pm at 20 Willow Road, London NW3,
right next to Hampstead Heath, and 6 minutes walk from Hampstead
Underground Station.
The cost is £30, payable on the day, and includes a vegetarian lunch.
Numbers are limited, so places will be allocated on a first come first
served basis. To book, please email my assistant Pam Smart at
pam@telepet.demon.co.uk, or ring her at 01706 82 5278
If you have any comments or suggestions on this Mailing List, please email us on info@sheldrake.org
Best wishes,
Editor |
|
|
| Prune |
I would like to add to the discussion previously in this thread regarding the relationship or lack thereof between mind and quantum theory.
The following online articles support my viewpoint from two different perspectives. This one from a physics point of view, and this one from a philosophy point of view. The latter is a response to the proposals of Stapp, which have numerous objections from other authors, for example Mohrhoff (search the LANL preprint archive at xxx.lanl.gov).
Additionally, I would like any comments from those of you familiar with the second-order representation theory of consciousness that Damasio describes in his 1999 book The Feeling of What Happens. I have failed to find any major criticisms from a neurology/psychology point of view (as opposed to problems with details). I'm not really interested in philosophical objections, as I find that philosophers not grounded in science can argue any point of view regardless of how ludicrous. |
|
|
| janneman |
I ordered the Damasio book. Gimme a break;) !
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| Bohm's causal interpretation is a type of hidden variables interpretation originally developed by de Broglie. This class of interpretations is just about the least popular one. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| I always seem to climb aboard the least popular interpretations, like Sheldrake and Bohm. At least Einstein thought Bohm might be onto something (of course, that could be interpreted a couple ways). |
|
|
| Prune |
Of all I've come across, I think Mohrhoff's view makes the most sense, with a simplicity quite fitting Ockham's razor.
Some references from the Los Alamos National Laboratory electronic pre-print archive:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/quant-ph/1...f/0/1/0/all/0/1
I've only read this one in detail, and it's a good start, especially for those familiar with Stapp's position which is criticized here (even if you don't agree with this, Stapp is criticized elswhere and his view seems very weird to me).
Of course, I don't agree with everything Mohrhoff wrote, as I've come across some weird stuff he's written (such as this). |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
I always seem to climb aboard the least popular interpretations, like Sheldrake and Bohm. At least Einstein thought Bohm might be onto something (of course, that could be interpreted a couple ways). |
Bohm's understanding of physical reality is moving and profound. His long-time appreciation for such things as non-locality shows, IMO, a sensitivity to probable directions future theory might take.
If you like Sheldrake and Bohm, you might enjoy Ervin Laszlo's The Connectivity Hypothesis. You might also enjoy reading about the emerging field of biophysics; for instance, see Popp's What Is Life? (a title referencing Schroedinger's book of the same name). |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| Thanks for tips on Mohrhoff and Ervin Laszlo; Sheldrake's speculations in recent book, The Sense of Being Stared At, must be close to some of Laszlo's from what I gather - why pets know when their owners are returning home, and all that. Another more difficult book, one you might know, is Hew Price's Time's Arrow and Archemedes Point, tho more philosophy/rigorous than I prefer. I think it's fascinating that so many big names of "pure science" have headed off into this post quantum theory territory of consciousness/subconsciousness and non-locality. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
What Is Life? |
Sorry, but life is best left to the sole discretion of biology. I am bothered by the arrogance of some physicists making claims outside their field of specialty. Penrose is a good example, and he made a jackass of himself with Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. Bringing consciousness into QM interpretations is an unnecessary complication and tantamount to religious anthropocentrism. None of the neuroscientists and psychologists I know, and those I read, see any role for non-classical physics in the brain. Going the other way, Mohrhoff's and other (more mainstream) interpretations do not need the crutch of a special role for consciousness.
Science has made unnecessary supernatural explanations for more and more mysteries originally left to religion and mysticism, and now we can theorize of even how the universe can begin without the need of a creator. In the same fashion, psychology and neuroscience are well on their way of explaining away the mysteries of the mind, without the need for what people like Stapp some other physicists and philosophers are turning into the religion of the quantum mind. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
Prune, your notion of "explanation," and your thoughts about leaving life to biologists, is simply not shared by a not insignificant number of top-rate thinkers, not the least because biology is underpinned, historically and by necessity, by chemistry and physics. The history of science, moreover, shows that those who attempt to stretch the bounds of the currently known face many forms of resistance---the greater, to be clear, from established scientists in the field in question. What does that tell you? It tells me, at least, that the "field" is not closed, that the boundaries of which necessarily will change, and that what is now called "biology" will, in 100 years, perhaps be seen in the same manner we view theories of Newton---of rather limited relevance.
Geoff, if I, science neophyte, were to guess the direction from which will come the new science to cannibalize the old, I'd place my money on non-locality as the current exception to prove a new rule. The phenomenon is clearly "unexplainable" by current quantum and relativistic theory, and perhaps stands the chance of relativizing causality as a notion applicable only to a limited set of circumstances within a limited realm of inquiry. |
|
|
| Prune |
Heh, I wonder how many of those so called 'top thinkers' are biologists, the people that actually know something about the subject.
Indeed biology, like all sciences, reduces to physics. However, the claim that non-classical effects are necessary to explain the mind is unwarranted by psychology and neurology -- in essence, it's like trying to go in the reverse direction in the reduction chain. Biology needs to draw on chemistry and physics, but physics doesn't need to draw on biology; it's a totally different thing.
Regarding your second paragraph, causality is a psychological invention based on classical intuitions, and not necessary in all QM interpretations. Once again I recommend you read this neat paper; the author does away with causality by replacing it with correlation, and his interpretation is the cleanest I've come across. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| Probably the one that is correct will be ignored, discredited and vilified and the one that makes the most sense will wind up being wrong hahah. Not too sure about the proposal that the person with the goods must come from the discipline involved. Sheldrake, one of my favorite examples, as if you couldn't tell, was from theoretical physics background (Cambridge), but many of his theories involve evolution and biology and whatever branch you call extra sensory perception - psychology? The big science types like Penrose and Josephson (I think) might reach the end of their particular road and out of boredom and/or curiosity pursue a different one that they stumble onto somehow, maybe accidentally. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| correction: Sheldrake studied biology at Cambridge and Philosphy at Harvard. I mistakenly thought he studied theoretical physics at Cambridge. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
The big science types like Penrose...stumble onto somehow, maybe accidentally. |
Penrose didn't just stumble, he fell head over heels and rolled down the hill until his face smacked the ground. :D |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| What is the objection by his detractors to Penrose? I am not sure I follow either Penrose or his detractors well enough to have a solid opinion, but it appears (from web search) that there are both proponents of and detractors to Penrose (his "quantum consciousness" theories), leading to possibility that Penrose might actually be right and his detractors might actually be wrong, if one were to be democratic about it. Is there some specific argument of Penrose that is usually attacked, or is it the whole idea? |
|
|
| Prune |
Penrose has been refuted severely on just about all points.
Specifically, the logical argument that forms the foundation of his house of cards has been explicitly formalized and shown invalid in A Refutation of Penrose's Gödelian Case Against Artificial Intelligence. Another good refutation, which, though less rigorous, has wider scope, can be found here. And you can find more at the usual place for consciousness articles (though some of these are not very good, especially the ones by computer scientists, which pains me to say for I'm also in CS). |
|
|
| Prune |
| What proponents? Other than the anesthesiologist Hameroff, with whom he developed his biological proposal (quantum computing microtubules, ha!), I can't think of many. And Hameroff seems to me to be on the fringe -- just check out his website. In one article there he even seems to be pushing panpsychism, about as absurd a position as can be. Methinks this bearded anesthesiologist has been hitting the N2O a bit too much. :D |
|
|
| geoffkait |
I saw at least one (well-written) defense of Penrose on Amazon.com reviews of Emperor's New Mind, in terms of some of Penrose's arguments having apparently been misinterpreted by some detractors. Assume it wasn't Hameroff, I'll go back and check :-) I do see some merit of one opinion that Penrose might be pulling rank (as big science guy) to push his argument (if in fact his argument is incorrect).
I have not read the book, but gather the *main objection* is to Penrose's idea that computers can't duplicate the human mind since it (mind) operates in non-algorithmic ways. That position does not seem very preposterous, to warrent all the squabbling, so I must be missing something.
If panpsychism promotes what I think it does = a "widespread mind" - or "field" - wonder what distiguishes panpsychism from, say, Sheldrake's (bizzare) interperetation of memory or even universal subconscious?
I have some CS under belt, some time ago: Fortran IV -- the DO loop was my favorite tool :-) |
|
|
| Prune |
Emperor's New Mind is an old book. He later wrote Shadows of the Mind essentially to reply to his critics. Should have stopped on the first mistake, before making a second embarassing one. Worse, he even had yet a third (short) book, with a collection of essays of his critics (including Stephen Hawking), and his attempt at a reply.
Again, I refer you to A Refutation of Penrose's Gödelian Case Against Artificial Intelligence for a rigorous refutation that leaves no place for ambiguity and claims of misinterpretation. His argument is converted to formal logic and shown invalid. Maybe if Penrose had bothered to do that himself, he'd have seen how far off he was. Really, click on the link and you can see for yourself. That's why, kids, you shouldn't let your ego overtake your abilities and turn into arrogance. Just reading the prose of these Penrose books is pretty revealing of his conceit. |
|
|
| Prune |
| Anyone check out the Mohrhoff paper I linked to? I'd be interested in comments from others. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
If panpsychism promotes what I think it does = a "widespread mind" - or "field" - wonder what distiguishes panpsychism from, say, Sheldrake's (bizzare) interperetation of memory or even universal subconscious? |
To answer your question, probably very little.
By the way, I personally don't find Sheldrake's theory bizarre. Has anyone actually proven that what we call knowledge exists, as it were, in the brain? Isn't a theory, say, that knowledge exists outside the brain, like radio waves outside a transceiver, equally consistent with the current state of our understanding? Such theory is perhaps more than equally consistent because, despite being more complicated (Ockham), it explains certain observations the knowledge-exists-in-the-brain understanding as yet cannot. |
|
|
| janneman |
Interesting thread guys. I'm reading: The origin of conciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind" by Julian Jaynes.
Anyway, on the subject of where knowledge exists. I think it doesn't exist at all, as an entity. What we call knowledge means that we have experienced a way to solve a particular problem, that we "know" how to solve a particular problem.
What does this mean, "we know"? I think it means that one time we stumbled up an action that solved a problem. That particular connectivity pattern in our brain was kept handy for the next time we would encounter the same or an equivalent problem. We would then call up this pattern and solve the problem. Yes, I am a fan of the Theory of Neuronal Group selection.
My 2 eurocents worth.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
| quote: | Interesting thread guys. I'm reading: The origin of conciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind" by Julian Jaynes.
Anyway, on the subject of where knowledge exists. I think it doesn't exist at all, as an entity. What we call knowledge means that we have experienced a way to solve a particular problem, that we "know" how to solve a particular problem.
What does this mean, "we know"? I think it means that one time we stumbled up an action that solved a problem. That particular connectivity pattern in our brain was kept handy for the next time we would encounter the same or an equivalent problem. We would then call up this pattern and solve the problem. Yes, I am a fan of the Theory of Neuronal Group selection.
|
I would agree that knowledge isn't an entity unto itself, but would disagree that it neccessarily means problem solving. I would simply say that knowledge relates to expieriencing and categorizing those expieriences. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
"By the way, I personally don't find Sheldrake's theory bizarre. Has anyone actually proven that what we call knowledge exists, as it were, in the brain? Isn't a theory, say, that knowledge exists outside the brain, like radio waves outside a transceiver, equally consistent with the current state of our understanding?"
I said it was bizarre, I didn't say impossible; I like your transceiver analogy, I also think TV transceiver is a good analogy. Pretty interesting that we seem to have ability to replay an entire movie from memory, assuming we've committed it all to memory. We usually recall/replay certain memorable scenes. (If pressed, I'm pretty sure I could recall Shane or Dr. Strangelove or certain Seinfeld episodes in their entirely, or close to it. Well, maybe not every *single* detail intact). Even a lone scene - say a minute's length - when you think about it, that's a whole lot of information/data, when you add up each frame of motion, including colors, details, dialog. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arthur-itis
I would agree that knowledge isn't an entity unto itself, but would disagree that it neccessarily means problem solving. I would simply say that knowledge relates to expieriencing and categorizing those expieriences. |
Yes the interesting thing here is how we define problem solving. If I follow Edelman's ideas (to which you may not agree of course) a particular neuronal group connects up in response to an external (or internal, but lets forget that for the moment) event. That leads to a reaction.
If the reaction is "good". for instance, running away when you hear the sound of a tiger, that neuronal connection group is "kept on stand-by" so to say because it was quite succesfull in making the organism survive. That I would loosely call "solved problem", and we now have the "knowledge" how to solve such a problem (a problem of chosing what to do when treatened by a tiger).
In this view, a neuronal connection group that isn't very usefull would not be kept, and cannot be quickly recalled.
So if one followed this reasoning, knowledge would exist not as an entity but as a possible neuronal connected group that would quickly be formed in response to an event. I realise that it still doesn't answer the question HOW that particular group could quickly be recalled....
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
A pertinent question, and one to which Sheldrake's theories are partly directed, concerns whether evidence exists suggesting that aspects of our knowledge, or of the overall knowledge accessible to us, or of the way (including the rate by which) we learn cannot be explained by the "direct experience model," if you will, that Janneman prefers. Sheldrake, among numerous others I've come across, thinks such evidence exists.
If any such evidence does exist, it troubles (confounds, probably) the understanding that knowledge or memory or traces of experience or neuronal patterning (or whatever you want to call that which comprises our brain's contribution to the act of knowing) can be fully accounted for by some form of direct learning of the subject in question. Sheldrake, for instance, thinks evidence exists suggesting that the time a given member of a species requires to learn something is shortened if the thing to be learned has already be learned by other members of the species. Evidence of that type would suggest that knowledge is indeed an "entity" or at least something amounting to something like a field existing independently of---outside---any given brain. |
|
|
| janneman |
Hmmm, isn't that the Lamarckian view? That things learned during the lifetime of a single individual, can somehow be fed back into the genetic machine and transported to offspring?
What I have read about that (which is limited, I admit) is that there is *some* evidence that acquired immunity to a virus can sometimes modify your genes so that your offspring is born with some immunity to a virus is hasn't encountered yet.
Does that work with knowledge? I'm extremely sceptical.
Jan Didden
["Lamarck's signature", How Retrogenes are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm, by Steele, Lindley & Blanden] |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip] Sheldrake, for instance, thinks evidence exists suggesting that the time a given member of a species requires to learn something is shortened if the thing to be learned has already be learned by other members of the species. [snip] |
Could that not be explained by the fact that knowledge within a culture is learned by new members because they learn 'shortcuts' so to say from the elders? In other words, to give a mundane example, the fact that we can learn a 'feel' for numbers faster than, say someone 1000 years ago, because we see it around us almost everywhere in modern life?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Could that not be explained by the fact that knowledge within a culture is learned by new members because they learn 'shortcuts' so to say from the elders? In other words, to give a mundane example, the fact that we can learn a 'feel' for numbers faster than, say someone 1000 years ago, because we see it around us almost everywhere in modern life?[/B] |
Jan,
Quite apart from whether our genes at birth are the same as our genes at death (they aren't) and the question why the difference, and apart from other direct-experience forms of learning to which you refer (whether Lamarkian or culture-shortcut types), the types of evidence to which Sheldrake refers suggests a limitation to direct-experience-learning models. Sheldrake's supposition regarding this evidence is that there exists in the universe something of the nature of an information field, which he calls a morphogenetic field. Such field, speculative and propositional as it is, would account for certain forms and rates of learning not well-explained by direct experience learning hypotheses. Generalise his "information field" a bit and one also might be on track to explaining so-called paranormal phenomena (Randy where art thou?) and even physical realities like non-locality. Re the latter, seems to me non-locality implies either transmission of a signal at speeds greater than the speed of light, or some form of interaction, possibly non-temporal, between matter and an information field, or both. I think Sheldrake would say the brain, like a radio transceiver, receives from and transmits into this field, such as that field may be. |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
| The key to a good wash is in the water. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bill Fitzpatrick
The key to a good wash is in the water. |
Did Aspect really say that? |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Quite apart from whether our genes at birth are the same as our genes at death (they aren't) |
Evolutionarily irrelevant. The reproductive germ cells that actually result in the next generation have the same genes as at birth of the individual, save for the occasional random mutation.
| quote: | | some form of interaction, possibly non-temporal, between matter and an information field |
Why are you separating the two in the first place?
| quote: | | I think Sheldrake would say the brain, like a radio transceiver, receives from and transmits into this field, such as that field may be. |
This is no different from mathematical platonism -- yet another religion. But I already talked about that previously in the thread and don't want to repeat myself.
By the way, you guys seem to have forgotten one more aspect of knowledge -- even if it's not an extramental entity, it is still not completely subjective to an individual because it can be shared among individuals.
I am very disappointed that people here are discussing the brain without having studied modern cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Physics may be the foundation, but it's a different level of abstraction. This is analogous to a bulk silicon manufacturer discussing the finer details of CPU logic design.
BTW, a quick Google search reveals that Sheldrake is generally regarded as a crackpot. Now why am I not surprised? I'm starting to think that a lot of people like to jump on whatever bandwagon appears the most interesting or 'cool', rather than what would be suggested by Ockham's razor and application of scientific method in good faith. It's the same situation regarding Penrose. Wishful thinking is a dangerous thing.
I quoted elsewhere on the forum The Ethics of Belief, but maybe I need to do it here too. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| If memory serves, a monetary prize was awarded some years back to someone who constructed a test that proved the morphic resonance theory, at least for the application that was tested. I don't recall the details of the test, but it had something to do with language learning/recognition skills. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
Evolutionarily irrelevant. The reproductive germ cells that actually result in the next generation have the same genes as at birth of the individual, save for the occasional random mutation.[snip] |
Well, the point of the research I quoted (Lamarcks Signature) was that your reproductive germ cells (or at least their genetic code) DO change as a result of events in your life (apart from the random mutations that is). Viral infections, when overcome by the individual, result in feedback to the germ line so that the offspring gets a headstart against that virus.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| My mistake. However, this appears to be immune system specific, and it makes sense that such effects would have developed there, as there is much selection pressure to keep up in the arms race with parasites (this same pressure is the reason sexual reproduction evolved). |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
If memory serves, a monetary prize was awarded some years back to someone who constructed a test that proved the morphic resonance theory, at least for the application that was tested. I don't recall the details of the test, but it had something to do with language learning/recognition skills. |
Yes, the test was won by a Harvard or Yale professor. It was designed around ancient Hebrew words and whether test subjects might show greater affinity for real vs. scrambled Hebrew words. Results showed a greater than statistical correlation.
Prune, your clear-eyed certainty about so many things commendable. |
|
|
| Prune |
Another Sheldrake experiment also showed statistically significant deviation from chance, yet upon a closer look it turns out to be as much BS as expected: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html
Post a reference to the experiment you talk about, and let's see how it has stood up to peer review. Making unsupported claims should be left to the AudioAsylum forums. :devilr:
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, as I did in my previous post regarding the Lamarckian-like retrotranscription. But, janneman provided evidence -- that's what makes all the difference. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
[snip]However, this appears to be immune system specific, and it makes sense that such effects would have developed there, as there is much selection pressure to keep up in the arms race with parasites (this same pressure is the reason sexual reproduction evolved). |
Indeed. Lamarck himself went so far to say (IIRC) that if you lost an arm during your life there was a chance that your ofspring would be born minus an arm as well, something that could be quickly verified as unlikely.
But I cannot help thinking now that there at least seems to exist a mechanism to feed back experiences to the germline, we may be up for some surprises. But yes, that's speculation.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| Huh? I thought IIRC meant 'If I Really Cared'. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
"You can't prove a theory, you can only disprove it"
Of course that is not true and there are a great many examples of theories having been proved by experiment. Notable among them are the proof by Michelson-Morley experiment that speed of light is constant; the explosion of the first atomic bomb proved the many theories involved in making the bomb including E=Mc2. Another example is the experiment in which atomic clocks were carried in jetliners around the world, then compared to stationary clocks on the ground to *prove* the theory of time dilation. The detection and measurement of cosmic background radiation proved the big bang theory. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Well, the point of the research I quoted (Lamarcks Signature) was that your reproductive germ cells (or at least their genetic code) DO change as a result of events in your life (apart from the random mutations that is). Viral infections, when overcome by the individual, result in feedback to the germ line so that the offspring gets a headstart against that virus. |
Sorry, Jan, I've allowed my busy state of mind to intrude upon actually reading certain posts.
There's a new brand of science developing---I mentioned it previously, called biophysics---that bears some promise for shedding light on such mysteries of biology as embryonic development and genetic changes induced by "experience" (life at large). Re embryonic development, a question not well explained by current DNA theory is how does a single fertilized cell develop into an embryo? The development process seems to require a blueprint---some form of picture of the whole organism-to-be---that actively feeds information back to the developing cells. The feedback mechanism would provide instructions to any given individual cell to develop into this or that kind of cell (muscle, bone, brain, etc).
Biophysicians have found evidence that light emitted from cells possibly performs this function. Every cell evidently emits a very small but perceptible amount of light, measured in photons, it's so small. The greatest amount of light is emitted at cell division and cell death. The interesting thing about this light is it seems to be of a connected variety, that is, at a quantum level, is non-locally connected with other sources of light comprising the same or closely related quantum "event." Light from each cell of a given organism, the hypothesis then runs, would combine with light from every other cell, creating an interference pattern---in the same manner, to simplify, as in the two-slit experiment, but a pattern much more complicated of course. The interference pattern would in some manner be the blueprint of overall development for the organism.
Biophysicians also speculate that the light-connectedness of cells possibly allows overall organismic coordination in a manner allowing genetic change in response to environmental pressures and circumstances. Notice Prune's qualification above that genes of reproductive cells do not change "except for small random mutations" or whatever he said. Well, those genes do change, and their change is quite evidently anything but random, given the increasingly ordered nature of things living. Biophysical phenomena possibly point the way to understanding an important element of organismic connectedness to the environment at large.
Connectedness at the quantum level, I might add, seems not to be an either/or phenomenon, but looks to exist by degrees in some sort of association by proximity or by reference to some other form of association. Quantum connectedness might provide a basis for such theories as Sheldrake's, allowing information flows in gradually lessening degrees between cells, organisms, species, ecospheres, etc, allowing overall coordination of the entire ecosystem through a complex feedback mechanism. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, as I did in my previous post regarding the Lamarckian-like retrotranscription. But, janneman provided evidence -- that's what makes all the difference. |
Prune, you might generalize from even this one experience by adopting the assumption that, at any given juncture, there might be some information about which you are unaware that might upset your certainty. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
Of course that is not true and there are a great many examples of theories having been proved by experiment. Notable among them are the proof by Michelson-Morley experiment that speed of light is constant; |
You have a lot to learn. It just means the theory has been tested to within some experimental precision. One can always come up with alternative theories compatible with observations. For example, Paul Davies came up with inconstant speed of light theory that does not contradict the experiment you mentioned: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,54394,00.html
| quote: | | the explosion of the first atomic bomb proved the many theories involved in making the bomb including E=Mc2. |
Wrong again. It merely did not disprove them. Maybe E=Mc2*(1+10^-100), but you can't know as experimental precision is insufficient.
| quote: | | Another example is the experiment in which atomic clocks were carried in jetliners around the world, then compared to stationary clocks on the ground to *prove* the theory of time dilation. |
Nope. There is no one theory of time dilation. It merely showed that a specific theory predicted results close enough to measurements to be within the margin of error. Indeed, better measurements may later disprove the theory. Already it is generally accepted that general relativity is just an approximation due to its incompatibility with QM.
| quote: | | The detection and measurement of cosmic background radiation proved the big bang theory. |
Wrong yet again (seeing a pattern here?). The big bang is simply the simplest explanation for the microwave background. Multiple lines of evidence (red shift, distant quazars, helium/hydrogen ratio) have given good reasons for accepting it is a good model, but as cosmology progresses, the theory is refined -- we have inflation and various other theories that deal with how specifically a big bang universe evolved.
Any scientific experiment is done to check whether it can disprove the theory. If it doesn't, the theory passes this specific test, but it doesn't mean that the model won't be disqualified further on -- there is no experiment that can guarantee that. You really need to study some philosophy of science. I find it appalling that you are not familiar with the principle of falsifiability, yet you are making claims on this discussion. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Prune, you might generalize from even this one experience by adopting the assumption that, at any given juncture, there might be some information about which you are unaware that might upset your certainty. |
Yes, and I'm not 100% certain of anything. But that leads to nihilism, which is not a practical philosophy. Instead, I work within the PAC -- probably approximately correct. :p |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
Yes, and I'm not 100% certain of anything. But that leads to nihilism, which is not a practical philosophy. Instead, I work within the PAC -- probably approximately correct. |
Well, probably correct except about that which you do not know, which by definition is unforeseen and unforeseeable: nobody knows what they do not know. See the problem with "probably"? |
|
|
| janneman |
Tom,
About the blue-print of the organism: There seems to be some evidence (I can't remember who researched it, I'll look it up later) that there is not really a blueprint in the cells. Rather, there is a range of options, a set of capabilities.
As I understand it: suppose that a cell starts to develop as a bone cell. At a certain point, there are enough bone cells, and other cells start to develop as muscle cells. Now, it would be wrong to say that some cells are *destined* to become bone cells and others to become muscle cells. They could become either one, and it depends on circumstances what they become. They have the capability to become specialist cells, that's in the blueprint, not *which one* they will become.
It is similar to what I wrote about earlier about Edelman's Theory of Neuronal Group selection. There really is no detailed blue print of the brain as far as connectivity is concerned. The number of possible connection combinations exceeds the number of particles in the known universe, so trying to code for such a wiring is rather futile. The brain has a general capability to do things, and those connectivity groups that are created to events and that are *succesfull* are kept around. It is illustrative that the general areas in the brain (say speech, reasoning, spatial perception) are located at the same place across individuals, pointing at a general capability blueprint. However, the actual wiring in these areas is often wildly different across individuals of similar capability!
Another similarity is found in the immune system. It is simply impossible to encode against all possible virusses, firstly because there are many more variants possible than coding sequences, and secondly there will be new variants that cannot be predicted. Instead the immune system provides a general capability, which IS in the blueprint, to detect and classify virusses and manufacture appropriate counter-bodies.
Sorry to ramble on, but all this points to me to a kind of *universal* law in nature. All these issue are basically evolutionary in nature: what work stays, what doesn't gets supressed. According to Ochams razor, if i would try to explain an unknown phenomenon, I would start with an evolutionary direction, rather than postulating new-fangled internal projection fields or what have you.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Well, probably correct except about that which you do not know, which by definition is unforeseen and unforeseeable: nobody knows what they do not know. See the problem with "probably"? |
You are grasping for straws now. By that logic, if I were to say that my next breath will probably not kill me instantly, you would have to disagree -- clearly a ludicrous proposition. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Jan, biophysical theories are consistent with and extend our understanding of evolutionary theory, of which I am quite aware, having studied it to not a small degree. The "blueprint" of which I spoke I intended to describe, much as you did, a dynamic blueprint subject to change on an ongoing basis. I agree with the proposition that no given cell is predestined to be this or that kind of cell, but adapts according to signals from its environment within relatively loose predetermined bounds (I think you called it a set of capabilities). I was merely suggesting that biophysics, which is not quack science, by the way (it is, after all, favoured by Germans---kidding!), might shed some light on the signalling mechanism guiding the adaptation process. |
|
|
| Prune |
| Hmm, reputable biophysics journals don't seem to be indulged in Sheldrake-like crackpottery. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Jan, [snip]I was merely suggesting that biophysics, which is not quack science, by the way (it is, after all, favoured by Germans---kidding!), might shed some light on the signalling mechanism guiding the adaptation process. |
I see. Well that's someting I am completely ignorant on. Haven't got to that stage yet :xeye: ...
[Time to get a pizza or something, lest the internal biophysics come to a grinding halt..]
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
Hmm, reputable biophysics journals don't seem to be indulged in Sheldrake-like crackpottery. |
Oh you mean you didn't know that? Prune learns again! |
|
|
| Prune |
| Learned what? I don't follow at all what you are trying to say. Maybe you should count to ten before you hit the reply button. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| One of Popp's articles is located here. Seems to nicely summarize his research efforts. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| Prune, reading your response to the 4 famous experiments, it seems to me you are basically agreeing with me (that the experiments proved the theories) on all major points, except for a little philosophical wiggling :-) |
|
|
| Prune |
I thought that word looked familiar. Mitogenetics is a perfect example of pathological science. A good discussion by Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir.
The Russians are well known for making extraordinary claims. But like Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Eventually, in real science mistakes are caught by peer review, even if it takes a while as in the case of cold fusion. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
Hilarious. Quoth Randi, "And, he obviously has never seen my act, or he'd know that I am truly "Amazing."" The guy's unsufferable. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
Prune, reading your response to the 4 famous experiments, it seems to me you are basically agreeing with me (that the experiments proved the theories) on all major points, except for a little philosophical wiggling :-) |
Not at all. Newtonian physics was also verified by experiments at the time, yet later shown incorrect. The same applies to, say, relativity. It is also incrorrect, but a far better approximation. The word 'proven' means established beyond doubt. There is no such thing in science. |
|
|
| Prune |
| The most contradictory thing about me is that, the skeptic that I am, I'm still hanging around an audiophile forum. serengetiplains, on the other hand, fits it like a glove, especially considering the occupation he lists in his profile (which I take at face value). |
|
|
| Prune |
| Hey, anyone here read John D. Barrow's Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
Eventually, in real science mistakes are caught by peer review, even if it takes a while as in the case of cold fusion. |
I, Prune, graduate student in (philosophy?), declare these and these and these to be mistakes ..... umm, probably. |
|
|
| Prune |
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about these references. Let's look at my post:| quote: | | Mitogenetics is a perfect example of pathological science. A good discussion by Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir. |
Langumuir said mitogenetics is pathological science, not me. But I agree with him. Just because someone cites a bunch of papers, some of which are not crackpot, it does not mean his argument is proven, unless it follows directly from what is cited -- which I don't see here.
And no, I'm not in philosophy. Philosophy that is not grounded in science is worse than useless -- it is theosophy. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
Off original topic (amazing randi) a bit, but any crossword puzzle fans take note of this "evidence" of Sheldrake's "morphic fields." (OK, so it's anecdotal :-). This is a test of the concept that the more people that have learned something the easier it will be for the next person to learn it.
Impress your frends with your crossword puzzle solving ability. This "trick" should also work for Today's crossword puzzle IF you do it late in the day, the later the better. The crossword puzzle selected should be in wide circulation (syndicated) to maximize the number of persons who have previously attempted the puzzle. Washington Post's daily xword puzzle works well, for example. Interesting how the words just pop into your head.
(Quotes by R. Sheldrake)
"Space does not allow summarizing all the work that is happening at present. I will just mention one experiment done recently. It is not, in fact, the best experiment, but it is the easiest to explain. This was done with crossword puzzles in the psychology department at Nottingham University. The young woman who did it, Monica England, reasoned as follows: If morphic resonance is happening, it should be easier to do today's newspaper crossword puzzle tomorrow than it would have been yesterday.
So we managed to persuade a London newspaper, The Evening Standard, to supply its crossword puzzle in advance for the purpose of this experiment. Students were tested in Nottingham the day before and the day after the crossword was published in London. They were also tested with a control crossword which was not published during that period. This of course involved testing different groups of students before and after. The control crossword gave a measure of each individual's ability to do crossword puzzles of that kind.
It turned out that students' performances on the test crossword did indeed improve by about 25 percent after it had been published, compared with the control crossword. This result is statistically significant and is, of course, very interesting." |
|
|
| Prune |
Until these results are verified and go through peer review they are suspect. Look what happened with cold fusion, and innumerable other cases.
Two pages ago in this thread I posted http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html in reference to another result supposedly supporting Sheldrake. I'm willing to bet that this applies just as well to the latest experiment you are quoting here. |
|
|
| Prune |
| By the way, to be clear, by cold fusion I'm referring specifically to the well publicized experiments with electrochemical cells beginning 15 years ago. Obviously, there are other type of 'cold', i.e. non-thermonuclear, fusion that actually works (IEC, muon catalyzed, etc.). |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| It should be pointed out we are not discussing cold fusion or the sense of being stared at - we are discussing the crossword puzzle experiment (for learning something that has already been learned by a large number of people), which has nothing at all to do with either of your examples. |
|
|
| eeka chu |
| I have an idea... learn to play an instrument! :D |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
Someone is saying that I can learn the guitar easier because a lot of other have learned before me?
Ridiculous! |
|
|
| eeka chu |
+1 Bill!
I use Powertabs, it makes learning new tunes about a million times easier. And Powertabs is the result of other guitarists learning before me. :smash:
But anyway...
I have a paranormal activity I can proove to Randi, because, you see, my house is eternally dammed.
I believe Satan himself visits Earth through a portal located somewhere within this very building. Sometimes a few times a day.
I can proove this by way of a strange smell. The smell is so foul, so disgusting, unimaginable and bowl churning that it can only be he, the unspeakable evil.
Usually I don't see the gateway from Hell forming, but it often coincides with Kitty visiting her tray, and, oddly enough, eminates from the same point in space time.
Perhaps he is invisible? I'm not sure.
I put this forth, as my conclusive proof of Satan's existence. |
|
|
| Prune |
Back to serious discussion.
I found Mohrhoff's website, which gives a better overview than the papers. I'd like to discuss his interpretation, along with the general criticism against this category of interpretations by Marchildon.
janneman, where'd you disappear to? Did we scare you away from this thread? :) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
Prune, I glanced at the websites you cite. They contain mucho information. Can you describe in a nutshell the dispute or question you want to discuss?
Morhoff's views seem to me somewhat Bohmian in character---wholistic and based, at some level, on an ontological persepective. I wasn't able, by quick review, to discern Marchildon's essential view.
Here's one question that came to mind reading Morhoff's overview. At page 1 of his Outline, he characterises Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as a "fuzziness principle." He then says, "What is the proper (i.e., mathematically rigorous and philosophical sound) way of describing the objective fuzziness of the quantum world? It is to assign objective probabilities to the possible outcomes of measurements." Fair enough. Morhoff then inserts into his discussion a picture, saying, "Take a look at these cloudlike images ..." and posts the picture.
At this point in his analysis I stopped reading (except to skim), because I sensed certain assumptions in his language I do not share. The picture he posts visually represents the probability an electron or proton being found within a given probability distribution represented by the fuzzy electron or proton space. But what is an electron, and what does it mean when he says "take a look" at these cloudlike "images"? We've never seen an electron, and we likely never will. Moreover, the notion of "seeing" might be inappropriate when speaking of electrons: electrons, or whatever attributes, elements or functions constitute what we describe as "electrons," exist at the level at which the basis of sight operates, and the basis of sight cannot be seen. A qualitative leap has occurred passing into the realm of the "small." Sight is a this-level (call it "classical") phenomenon. If sight is inappropriate---cannot be applied---to the quantum realm, perhaps everything "this-level" ("classical") cannot be applied to the quantum level.
One important this-level notion is causation. Assume for a moment that causation, like sight, does not apply in the quantum realm. Where does that assumption leave you in respect of the notion of probability? In the same manner that things we cannot see---particles (photon, electron, whatever)---form the basis of sight, so too, perhaps, does that which we call probability form the basis of causation. It would follow that in the same fashion that the notion of "particle" must be shorn of this-level qualities ("thingness" or "particleness" are two qualities pertinent to "sight"), so too would the notion of "probability" need to be shorn of anything resembling causation, for probability would be the basis of causation. Probability, in this sense, would then be viewed as non-causal, or a-causal, and the "things" or "particles" to which this notion of probability would apply would be shorn of causal happening.
My point, here, is that the term "probability" implies not just a whiff of the notion of causation. Perhaps discussions regarding quantum theory need to recheck its descriptive language, and assumptions residing in that language. My two cents. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | The picture he posts visually represents the probability an electron or proton being found within a given probability distribution represented by the fuzzy electron or proton space. But what is an electron, and what does it mean when he says "take a look" at these cloudlike "images"? We've never seen an electron, and we likely never will. |
Of course. But he's not implying one can see an electron -- the picture is just a conceptual diagram.
| quote: | | If sight is inappropriate---cannot be applied---to the quantum realm, perhaps everything "this-level" ("classical") cannot be applied to the quantum level. |
What applies is what the math says. :)
Regarding the rest of your comment, I don't agree that probability implies causation. For example, the justification of Ockham's razor is probabilistic/statistical (infinitely more complex hypotheses that fit known data than simpler ones, thus probability is that the simpler is correct and the complex ones are what is called overfitting the data and will fail to generalize to new data). Another example is entropy. Why does it increase? Consider the entropy at a given point in the dimension of time. Now, the number of possible states with higher entropy are far more than those with lower entropy. Thus, choosing another point in time at random will probably have higher entropy. (An aside: This leaves the issue of why entropy is increasing in what we perceive as forward in time. First, it indicates that at the endpoint we call the beginning of the big bang, entropy was low -- that is why it's increasing in one direction. Second, it means there is some reason why we perceive time in the direction of increasing entropy. From physics and information theory we know the connection between entropy and information content. It has been proposed that we perceive time going forward because at points in time where we have more memories, we must also have more entropy. In neither of these two cases is the notion of causation needed.)
In Mohrhoff's interpretation, counterfactuals are assigned objective probabilities in whos calculation not just past/present, but also future facts are taken into account. Also, to quote a Marchildon paper, according to Mohrhoff's view "no unmeasured observable of no individual system whatsoever has a true value in the interval between pre- and postselection." Mohrhoff sees quantum theory not as a direct model of reality, but as the information we can know about it, a probability algorithm for assigning abovesaid values.
The website info seems more designed for the layman; you'd do much better to read the paper describing his interpretation:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9903051
Also check out the other one I mentioned already several times in this thread. I don't feel I could explain here as well as the papers what precisely Mohrhoff means by 'facts' as used in the previous paragraph. |
|
|
| Prune |
| By the way, I contacted Mohrhoff to ask him what he thinks of how Damasio's neurobiological account of consciosness fits in the argument between him and Stapp. Stapp sees Damasio's view as supporting his interpretation, which directly involves consciousness (although Damasio doesn't at all involve QM in his discussion). Mohrhoff's reply was pretty much what I expected -- his interpretation is trivially compatible with Damasio's consciousness theory because there is no overlap. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
Mohrhoff sees quantum theory not as a direct model of reality, but as the information we can know about it, a probability algorithm for assigning abovesaid values.
|
If Mohrhoff says what you say he says, he skips over the problem I touched on by setting up a straw man called direct modelling. In saying quantum theory is information we can know about reality, and not a direct model of reality, what, in that understanding, is a "direct model"? No answer can be given because the concept is evidently empty because reality evidently cannot be directly modeled. Removing the straw man from his statement, the statement reduces to:
A probability algorithm for assigning values is a probability algorith for assigning values.
I see a hint of redundancy there, and no real suggestion of what, or what does not, actually occur at the quantum level, whether probablistic or non-probablistic. |
|
|
| Prune |
| My wording was not precise -- he never uses that term (direct modelling). Of course, any theory is a model, including a probability algorithm. Maybe direct/indirect wasn't the exact distinction for me to suggest. |
|
|
|
