Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
- Posts: 517
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Jan Sand wrote: ↑
May 30th, 2018, 5:43 pm
Although the patterns of nerve response seem similar to the automatic stimulation response within a digital setup, neuron responses are proportional to intensity and are affected by input from preconditioned secondary sources, as far as I know. So it is not just a simple matter of digital in and output. These preconditions come from genetic and experience sources so I cannot believe it is merely a simple dynamic. I have neither the background nor the pattern experience to properly judge or analyse the possibilities so I can only guess that some kind of matrix understanding is necessary.
You could have dominoes of different sizes, some needing more hits from smaller ones to be toppled, and sure you'd need more dominoes than we have neurons (plus glial cells which also have to do with intelligence). But regardless of the complexity, once there is determinism, you just have a lot of stuff inevitably'falling'. The word intelligence seems off. I suppose something like computational power, like we refer to calculators or something, could be used as a label.
We, in situ, also compelled, may find the word intelligence fitting, but that's just qualia.
- Posts: 510
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
I concur that, if time is a single fourth dimension as Einstein indicated and our travel from the past to the future is an illusion, then the future is as fixed as the past and the present is merely a point of view. But some very fine thinkers have examined the nature of quantum theory and turned our whole existence into Schrödinger's cat. The idea that an observer could instantly and arbitrarily create whole new universes does seem fetched rather further than I can accept but if time were not one dimension but two or more, then all these so-called "other" universes already exist and are not individual universes but merely a much more complex variety of this one with an almost infinite possibility of various paths through it. I can barely visualize some of the aspects of a simple four dimensional universe and a universe of about eleven dimensions, as brane theory seems to require, are completely outside my abilities of imagination. As J.B.S. Haldane pointed out, the universe is not only queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think.