The Illusive, Unfathomable Goose Egg

[Nick M. of The Apricots]

Just a few questions that have been pestering me. Very loosely thought out, I know. I'll be happy to elaborate on anything that's unclear. Any insight?

 

1. Are "thinking" technologies organic extensions of the human intellect?

 

-Have computers subjugated computative thought as machines have vanquished manpower?

*If so, is it natural? Does this mean computative thought is obsolete? Is the sharpening of one's computative ability a purely vain practice?

 

-If a man-made computer could be reduced to sub-atomic particles and implanted into the circuitry of the brain, would the computers operations be considered thought?

 

--Thought has defeated physical prowess. Can thought defeat thought?

 

2. Is perceptual thought physical, in that it is quantized, or are it's nuances resting on a somehow infinitely smooth gradient?

 

--Can perception perceive itself?

 

3. Are the laws of physics limited to the physics of the mind?

 

--We can not seem to make sense of infinity. Is a quantized physical world a product this limitation or is this limitation a product of a quantized physical world?

 

 

 

IS ZERO REAL IN THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE?

[Buffy]

You might want to start with something a bit more, uh, *answerable*, Nick...

 

I know from your intro that you're new to science and we don't have any minimum level of knowledge around here at all, but you'll find it useful to try to walk before you run.

 

And we're more than happy to help! :)

 

Now for starters, you mention "thinking technologies:" do you want to try to define what you mean by this? I do computers for a living, and I know how stupid they are. I hardly think that what they do qualifies as "thought."

 

This is not to say they won't ever, but the very complexity of the questions you ask we can barely scratch the surface of, which makes it virtually impossible to even begin to design a "thinking machine."

 

Think small,

Buffy

[Racoon]

 

1. Are "thinking" technologies organic extensions of the human intellect?

 

2. Is perceptual thought physical, in that it is quantized, or are it's nuances resting on a somehow infinitely smooth gradient?

 

3. Are the laws of physics limited to the physics of the mind?

 

IS ZERO REAL IN THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE?

 

1. Technology is an extension of the human mind. pretty obvious methinks

 

2. This question doesn't make sense, IMHO.. perhaps you could explain physical perceptual thought.. If you decide to stick around that is

 

3. Humans are limited to the laws of physics, and not the other way around.

 

0 is what it is. a big goose egg. Nothing

[Sacri Sankt]

1. Technology is an extension of the human mind. pretty obvious methinks

 

i disagree. its not an extention of our minds any more than a stick is an extention of our bodies. its a tool, the product of our mind, an extention of its capabilities, but not an extention of it.

 

2. Is perceptual thought physical, in that it is quantized, or are it's nuances resting on a somehow infinitely smooth gradient?

2. This question doesn't make sense, IMHO.. perhaps you could explain physical perceptual thought.. If you decide to stick around that is

 

i think he is asking whether the universe is digital or analoge. is there a minimum size, for instance, or can you just go down and down forever. he is asking whether our thoughts are made of such 'fundamental' units, or not.

 

3. Are the laws of physics limited to the physics of the mind?

3. Humans are limited to the laws of physics, and not the other way around.

 

i believe he is asking whether we will be forever limited to what we can understand, to what our minds can make sense of, and therefore never achieve a full understanding.

 

i presume, he wishes to know whether we will be able to use computers to exceed the limits of our humanity, or if such an effort would merely magnify our flaws along with our talents. unfortunately, i dont think anyone knows the answer to that, all that can be offered is opinion.

0 is what it is. a big goose egg. Nothing

[Sacri Sankt]

oh, my answers, lol.

1-no

2-yes

3-yes

[Eclogite]

1. Are "thinking" technologies organic extensions of the human intellect?

Like Buffy I am perplexed by what you intend 'thinking technologies' to be. Equally, you imply that such technologies are organic. Is that what you meant? If so it simply doubles the confusion.

 

 

Have computers subjugated computative thought as machines have vanquished manpower?

I couldn't agree with your comparison. Machines have not vanquished manpower. Machines have extended, complemented, reinforced, augmented and enriched manpower.

True they have done this, in some instances, by replacing manpower. This may, in the short term, have been disadvatageous for some individuals. In the larger scheme of things it is surely better that, for example, ditches are dug by machines than by men labouring for twelve hours a day in the hot sun.

 

Does this mean computative thought is obsolete? Is the sharpening of one's computative ability a purely vain practice?

By computative thought I take it you mean something like doing mental arithmetic, rather than using a calculator. Let me take an elitist position: computative thought is obsolete for those who have little wish to think original thoughts, or do original things. The same people who would always rather read a book than write a diary; watch a film of the book, than read the book; listen to their mp3 player, than play a musical instrument.

Even baboons can count up to four - I can't bite nearly as well as a baboon, so I'd better do something better.

-If a man-made computer could be reduced to sub-atomic particles and implanted into the circuitry of the brain, would the computers operations be considered thought?

By itself, no, but the process would become part of thought. Thought is an emergent property. What you describe is one of the components from which thought could emerge.

--Thought has defeated physical prowess. Can thought defeat thought?

I think so.:)

 

--Can perception perceive itself?

Yes. Isn't this self evident?

Are the laws of physics limited to the physics of the mind?

I cannot be understanding you correctly. Obviously the laws of physics effect everything in the Universe. What was your intention?

[Racoon]

i disagree. its not an extention of our minds any more than a stick is an extention of our bodies. its a tool, the product of our mind, an extention of its capabilities, but not an extention of it.

 

thats what I meant.

I don't see any computers falling off trees.

 

a stick is only a 'tool' if you use it as a tool. otherwise its just a stick; a piece of wood. not all sticks can be used as tools. not all humans are capable of understanding the extension of their own minds.

 

 

Is the Universe analog or digital?

Niether. its mostly helium and hydrogen.

 

Yes, there is a finite capability of the brain to understand, I think.

3 pounds of grey matter has its limits. Some more or less than others.

[Sacri Sankt]

its not so much the simple limits of our mind, its the nature of our minds, of our intellects, that indicates we will never know the full picture. you could make a human brain the size of a planet, it still couldnt get a total perspective. there will, to paraphrase donald rumsfeld, always be unknown unknowns.

 

and the digital universe thing, i recall reading that there is a theoretical 'minimum size' to the universe, indicating it is quantum (rather than digital) and not contiguous or analogue.

[Nick M. of The Apricots]

Analog and digital are the exact words I would have used 2 weeks ago.

Thanks everyone.

 

Why wouldn't I stick around?

[InfiniteNow]

Why wouldn't I stick around?

Takes too long to enter your username every time you visit? :eek2:

 

JK. Cheers. :D

[Nick M. of The Apricots]

Nice.

 

Anyhow, "thinking", in retrospect, was a very poor word to use. I simply meant computers.

 

It's obvious that nothingness conceptually exists. When I pose the question, "Does zero exist", I mean physically. More importantly, can zero exist as a constant for our range of thought.

 

And Buffy, I didn't seek answers.

[InfiniteNow]

It's obvious that nothingness conceptually exists.

I actually have taken the opposite stance in argument before. The concept of a concept exists, but not the concept of nothing. The moment "nothing" is described, it becomes something.

 

 

Let me double check... Yep, I'm in the Philosophy and Humanities forum.

[Zythryn]

When I pose the question, "Does zero exist", I mean physically. More importantly, can zero exist as a constant for our range of thought.

 

Zero exists as a concept. Zero has no physicality, nor does 1, 2 or any other number:shrug:

 

Our thought processes can 'grok' (understand/conceive) zero. I am not sure what you mean by 'can zero exist as a constant for our range of thought'. What type of constant are you trying to apply to human thought?

[CraigD]

As Buffy notes, this is a barrage of big questions, but hey, isn’t this what we like here at hypography?

1. Are "thinking" technologies organic extensions of the human intellect?

As a cyberneticist for 32 years (I was computer when computer wasn’t cool ;)) I’ve a good intuition of what Nick means by “thinking” technologies – though “organic” seems out-of-place, as few computers are very “organic”, either in a biological or chemical sense.

 

My answer would be a big “yes” – computers have extended human cognitive capability in much the way that advanced mechanical tools such as bows and arrows, cordage, buckets, pick, shovels, and, eventually, engine-powered machines, have extended human physical capability. Since the 1970s even computing neophytes have been capable of mathematical accomplishments via brute computational force that the best mathematicians of the 1870s were not

-Have computers subjugated computative thought as machines have vanquished manpower?

If by “computative though”, one means “computation”, the following of explicitly defined programs of arithmetic computation, I think yes.

 

This is not to say that student should not learn to compute using only paper and pencil. IMHO, an understanding of the mechanics of computation is important to developing a good understanding of science and mathematics in general. Rather, the ubiquity of electronic computing machines provide additional opportunities to develop valuable intuition via the exercise of building them, either actually or in design only.

*If so, is it natural? Does this mean computative thought is obsolete? Is the sharpening of one's computative ability a purely vain practice?

Other than as noted above, I think so. I believe the value of practicing rote computation is analogous to that of practicing digging ditches with ones bare hands

-If a man-made computer could be reduced to sub-atomic particles and implanted into the circuitry of the brain, would the computers operations be considered thought?

I don’t believe such a reduction in scale is a realistic scenario. Also, the brain is poorly described as “circuitry” – the mechanism of its operation appears to be much more complicated than that of the conductors and switches of electronic computers.

 

Direct brain-computer interfaces – which may well, but not certainly, become commonplace in the near future – will, I suspect, more resemble very efficient versions of present-day interfaces, such as text and graphical displays display screens and speech recognition systems. There’s some evidence that simple text reading by a skilled reader already exceeds the human minds “bandwidth” for receiving data. While best current input interfaces appear significantly slower than possible – we appear to be able to think faster than we can speak, and much faster than we can write or type – an optimal interface using direct brain-computer technology would not, IMHO, be as great an improvement as has occurred with advances in writing technology from clay tablets to paper and pen to electronic transcription systems.

--Thought has defeated physical prowess. Can thought defeat thought?

Though has augmented physical prowess, but not IMHO “defeated” it. An upper-one-percentile IQ and a lifetime of martial arts training will usually prove ineffective in defending against a pride of hungry lions, and the most advanced technological research lab unable to repel an assault by even a poorly trained and equipped, but sufficiently large, police/military team

2. Is perceptual thought physical, in that it is quantized, or are it's nuances resting on a somehow infinitely smooth gradient?

A somewhat controversial question, but, I believe, though is due to physical phenomena. If my and similar-minded people’s understanding is correct, the scale of biological “thinking machinery” – brains – is sufficiently large to be dominated by classical, macroscopic effects, not quantum mechanics.

--Can perception perceive itself?

Absolutely. Since the development of Electroencephalography ca. 1880, the phenomena of animal and human perception has to some extent been precisely physically measurable. Present day technologies such as implanted electrodes and fMRI are able to measure these neurological events with much greater resolution, though still not sufficiently high to provide conclusive data upon which a purely computational model of animal and human cognition can be developed.

3. Are the laws of physics limited to the physics of the mind?

Unless I badly misunderstand the question, no. Physical conditions in such places as the cold vacuum of space, the insides of stars, and the collision regions of particle accelerators are very different than those inside living creatures, requiring different scientific magisteria.

--We can not seem to make sense of infinity. Is a quantized physical world a product this limitation or is this limitation a product of a quantized physical world?

Despite being made of finite ensembles of particles ultimate governed (best current theory predicts) by quantum mechanics, many human beings appear to be able to make sense of both various kinds of infinity and continuity.

IS ZERO REAL IN THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE?

If Nick is asking this question, I’m fairly certain he means it in a sense beyond what I prepared to answer in this already idea-crowded thread, but, undaunted…

 

Yes. The number [math]0[/math] may be meaningfully applied to many measurable physical phenomena.

[InfiniteNow]

I would like to first acknowledge CraigD for the post above, as it is an example of what education and patience combined can do to serve others around them. Concise, warm, and clear. Overall, a great job addressing some very difficult questions.

 

Per the original post, I really am only currently prepared to address one of the questions, that being the following:

Can perception perceive itself?

My immediate thought was the concept of proprioception. It's not so much a perception of perception, but a perception of that which is occuring within the body. Here's a better explanation:

 

Proprioception From a Spinocerebellar Perspective -- Bosco and Poppele 81 (2): 539 -- Physiological Reviews

The term proprioception was coined by Sherrington to describe the sensory information contributing to a sense of self position and movement. The relationship of proprioception to unconscious or more automatic functions has traditionally distinguished it from kinesthesis, or the conscious sense of position and movement. Proprioception has also been associated with a distinct class of sensory receptors, most notably those found in the muscles and related deep tissues, while kinesthesis has been more closely associated with joint and cutaneous receptors.

 

Besides this term, you'd likely pick-up a great deal of solid information... information which would supplement your abstract explorations, by googling "somatosensation."

 

 

Cheers. :confused:

[Nick M. of The Apricots]

Absolutely wonderful. Thank you.

[rocket art]

1. Are "thinking" technologies organic extensions of the human intellect?

 

2. Is perceptual thought physical, in that it is quantized, or are it's nuances resting on a somehow infinitely smooth gradient?

 

3. Are the laws of physics limited to the physics of the mind?

 

I'd like to share some ideas about these.

 

1. "Thinking" technologies, or even AI robots in a possible future, more like mirror the human intellect. However such level of development would require humans to achieve more evolved, holistic progress, being observers to such observed technolgy. The observed would mirror dependent on the projection of the observer. However, if such observer had not achieved an evolved Consciousness higher than the dimensional, "physical" realm of the observed, the danger of such technology to mirror the fear, paranoia, injustice (just as some existing technologies result to pollution due to unawareness to holistic approach relative to the environment) from demands by such increased technology may not necessarily result to good outcome.

It is necessary for the observer to expand to higher Awareness and more holistic perceptions (technological-cultural-spiritual) that would positively mirror to the observed within such complex level of technology, and to balance the human phenomenon with advanced technology that an inevitable Future may lead. Such an inevitablity will depend on how an Aware Present would project its survival towards an Ideal Future.

 

2. A quantized thought is in the realm of the physical, the Seen, while beyond such will render towards the realm of the Unseen, infinite, Spiritual. The higher level of the infinite wil always be the observer in relation to the quantized observed physicality.

 

3. The observed laws of physics is dependent on the level achieved by the observer as to the depth he had probed from the Unseen, to become part of the Seen, the observed.

 

IS ZERO REAL IN THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE?

 

I tend to visually perceive all numbers from +1 to +nth as one side of a dimensional fabric, and the -1 to -nth as the other side of such fabric. I see zero however, as a hole where another dimension, this time perpendicular to the the previous dimensions, could be perceived. This dimension may be how Infinite Energy can be perceived, wherein its perpendicular presence mold and form the 'nature' of the previous + and - dimensional fabrics that are parallel with each other.