Sione

So, what is the problem with editing, correcting spelling and stuff?

This is what you quoted yourself: -"Chemical synapses allow neurons to form interconnected circuits within the central nervous system. They are thus crucial to the biological computations that underlie perception and thought." Computational simulation is a field of computer science. What part do you still not understand? Simulating emotions and thought process means simulating neurons mechanics. The rest you might understand when you realize electrochemical reaction is ELECTROMAGNETIC reaction. What do you imagine you and me disagree about? We are saying the same thing, only you fail to realize that underlying mechanics includes magnetic fields as well. So, do you think that mechanics of neurons is independent of quantum properties and deterministic? Do you think chemical reactions are deterministic?

chemoelectric? Hahahaa... Humans are so persistently oblivious to magnetic forces, oh mercy! This confirms my point from another thread about Lorentz... remember, there is no electricity without magnetism. Chemistry is an approximation of electromagnetics, can you grasp? Your statement that something is chemoelectric, but not electromagnetic is an insult to human race, you should be put in jail for saying such nonsense. "ion exchange" IS ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION, thought some might learn about it at chemistry class, sorry if that confused you. If you are not aware of electromagnetic properties of human brain, then you're not even worth making fun of. I pity you, and looking forward to see what others will say about that. In the meantime, you could do some reading and save yourself further embarrassment.

I believe we achieved some understanding here. And so, before we start talking about simulating this "machine", we should be aware if it is really deterministic or not. ------------------ Now, I see you argue brain is "Turing machine" and that is exactly the point we need to discuss first. That is the whole point of my talk about determinism, to discuss if brain is deterministic type of Turing machine or is some kind of non-deterministic Quantum machine. Thank goddess Chance, discussion will be more obvious and straight forward now... so, let us argue. I say, you are wrong! That is right' date=' they must be modeled if we are to call it a 'real-deal'. However, without knowing MECHANICS, we can not know if there are quantum effects at play. Do you suggest you have a reason to be believe there are no quantum effects at play in thought process? That is quite a lot to say about something human race knows nothing about, especially since brain is made out of these quantum particles. Please, you are suggesting memory and thought process exist inside the brain as molecular structures, geometrical imprints? It is well known brain functions with electric impulses and it is almost completely unknown about magnetic fields influences to whole thing... my point is, thought process is not chemical, it would be too slow, but ELECTROMAGNETIC. Do you really mean to dispute this? By the way, electromagnetic interaction is not well defined at all, it is not even chaotic, it is truly non-deterministic and uncertain, that is why we have Quantum Mechanics explaining it with voodoo. Do you mean to refute this? That sounds great and I would like to hear more about it. However, we CAN MOST CERTAINLY NOT 'model the entire human development process inside a computer, starting with a fertilized egg', are you crazy? We can not even simulate the simple bonding of two hydrogen atoms, only statistically via Quantum Mechanics, and that is fake. Any more than couple of atoms in such simulation and QM will struggle, because it does not have equations for interaction, but equations of statistical geometry description. Chemistry is an approximation, think outside the box and look at the big picture... accept this knowledge, do you accept?

bascule, That's great. I agree with almost everything you said. That's fine, I do not insist. All I'm saying is that IF it turns out that it is not deterministic, say because of quantum mechanics, then how do you simulate it short of building a physical replica? My only point is: - WITHOUT the DEFINITION of underlying MECHANICS there can be no TRUE SIMULATION. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes' date=' but first you need to ask if it is at all POSSIBLE to know. If it is based on Quantum Mechanics, then it is not possible to know, it is NOT DETERMINISTIC in that case. The first thing to know about simulating something is MECHANICS of it, do you know mechanics of thoughts and emotions? If not, then you can not claim they are either deterministic or not, only statistically, which is fake. [b']Forget the word "predictable", [/b]it is wrong word that apparently makes confusion. This is what I am talking about: de⋅ter⋅min⋅ism –noun 1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly. In contrast to probabilistic. 2. Describes an algorithm in which the correct next step depends only on the current state. You' date=' kind of, did not answer to my questions, but keep challenging me for some strange reason. I hope what you're going to say next has anything to do with anything, lets see... We do not know something before we know it, ok.

Electromagnetic fields, my friend! Chemistry is for unsuspected younglings. Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty and all that... now, recognize your mistakes and accept the knowledge given to you here, do you accept?

Hahaaa. Your forgot to quote the answer' date=' hilarious! I already told you this, let me repeat it in bold: [b']This thread is about simulating EMOTIONS. What confused you?[/b] Now, let me ask you one more time in hope that you can articulate some answer: - Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything? Do you not know what simulation has to do with computer science?

This thread is about simulating EMOTIONS. What confused you? Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything?

Why would you want to discuss that? Does it concern simulation of either? I explained many times now I do not mean to compare them directly, do not be so literal. They can not really be compared. 'Emotion', as defined, is not purpose based property, therefore without real reference. There is no such thing as "good emotion" and "bad emotion", only if you put it in the context of PURPOSE and RATIONALE. Yeeya! You have no idea what "predictable" means. Please use dictionary, you just keep repeating your opinion based on incomplete understanding, without any arguments and despite what has already been said. Lets try some other words: 1.) Do you say emotions are DETERMINISTIC? 2.) Do you say thoughts are DETERMINISTIC? 3.) Do you say there is no "free will"? What do you think we are talking about here, your mum, your intuition? Ability to guess something couple of times or even most of the time does not make it deterministic. Deterministic means to be able to calculate exact and every reaction. Determinism is just about the most important property of some system. As already explained couple of times, if the process is not deterministic then simulation can only be made statistically, that is fake. You can accept animated smiley face to 'have emotions' if you like, but that's just as fake, get it? If your AI is predictable, then it will not be able to "feel" any NEW emotions, it would lack in originality. Statistically you could fool everyone, but do you accept that as REAL? Would you have kids and spend the rest of your life with such AI? The definition for the "true emotion" must be a description of mechanics of the process, otherwise simulation will be fake. Artificial Neural Network, therefore fits my definition as a system possibly capable of producing "true emotion". The question of determinism still stays, i.e. do ANN manifest randomness and can it be compared to the determinism of the real thought process. Will you stop confusing EMOTION and REACTION? Reaction is intellectual process, you can not predict irrational behavior based solely on emotions, that is what we call CRAZY, erratic and emotional. Put emotional person and rational in the same situation and tell me who is easier to predict? What? What in the world are you trying to say? Instinct and emotion are not the same, hmm. Ok, thank you, that's plenty to say. I appreciate your opinion, but what is it based on?

Yes, I agree with all that... except for the word "enough". It is always "enough", it might be "small", but never zero, which kind of answers your 1st question - no, everything is moving. What exist, moves. E pur si muove! If it was not moving, there would be no time. If it was not moving, there would be no heat or light. If it was not moving, there would be no life. Motion=Animation=Life. Universe is alive, except where is absolutely cold, but then there is no time or light there either and without time stuff does not really exists. Yes, quite literally you can 'freeze the time', which is convenient way to "kill the time" when traveling around galaxies.

No problem, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but if you care to compare your imagination with reality, then you will try to find some evidence in support of your dreams. You say there are many failings of classical physics, so please share one with us, one that includes magnetic fields and have failed, just one? What laws of physics do you say stop working when electron approaches proton - electric or magnetic? When you say classical physics fails to describe atom, what particular equation you referring to - Lorenz, Maxwell, Coulomb, Faraday?

I'm not sure if you're arguing against something or you're simply expanding on it. In any case, are you saying emotions are random, chaotic, predictable or something else? (I do not accept semi-predictable events, it makes as much sense as semi-random. However, I do accept pseudo-random numbers, they are fuly predictable as you said.) Ok, we are going around this same thing. I do not mean to compare emotional <-> rational directly, but only if they are predictable or not. I only mean to compare them in this way: RATIONAL = deterministic EMOTIONAL = chaotic/random

Sure. However, the discussion here was about the _possibility and I came to argue against people that want to dismiss this blindly, close the case based on prejudice. That is scientifically unwise, so I came to help you out and support your assertion. My arguments are not to disprove or prove theories, but just as yours as I gather, to establish the possibility and refute a priori refusal based on Bohr model or similar approximation. I'm here to support your arguments for the possibility of magnetic fields as a primary source and explanation for subatomic interaction, this is what you're asserting, right? I'm also here to argue against claims that say 'classical physics' approach, which is how is this called, has failed to model atom. I refute that by saying none of the proposed theories consider magnetic fields. Even more, I say we do not have equation of motion to handle magnetic spin, magnetic dipole torque and electrostatic forces simultaneously, and I propose such complete equation could actually produce the full description of electron orbits. To refute my arguments someone only needs to point equation that represents 'classical physics' attempt at modeling subatomic interaction, then we can see if such equation really exists and what is wrong with it, perhaps it is just incomplete? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

Ok' date=' some theory, some equation does not work, that is fine. Faster than speed of light is also fine, at least as much as disappearing and reappearing out of nowhere, I suppose. Out of curiosity, what is the surface of an electron, what is the size of it? False statement. The failings of 'classical physics' are not documented because there are no such experiments that can speak for the whole 'classical physics' approach. Few models fail as not complete, but as I said, and just as Greg continuously points out, it is because none of them consider MAGNETIC fields. I can prove "failings of classical physics" are not documented at all. Search the Internet and you will find no such documentation. Sure' date=' you can ignore it and not spend any time on it, but then you would be obscuring this simple truth from your sight, which is not scientifically wise. First, if you find some time, you would need to point the exact equation to blame for not providing the results. I still do not know if you are saying that we know those equations, we do not know them or we know them, but they do not work? As far as I can tell all the equations work individually and are used in industry, so where exactly did classical approach fail? What particular equation and laws of physics stop working once electron approaches proton - Lorentz, Coulomb... which equation is wrong and responsible for this failure? Yes. What I'm trying to say is that it is not "possibility", but rather obvious fact. Why are you so hesitant to accept it, even thought it is your own conclusion as well? I think you are giving excellent supporting arguments, still you seem to would like some more proof?

"Orbits", as a concept, have no direct computational impact, it is an observational description and as such can not be really responsible for the failure of some incomplete theory and damnation of the whole 'classical physics' approach. Orbits are not wrong just because Bohr model does not work for everything, that is way to much to say about some concept of something orbiting something in smooth path, as opposed to jumping around, disappearing and reappearing as in QM. Bohr model has nothing to do with magnetic fields and it is not representative of 'classical physics' approach, it is just one of the many simplifications and approximations, but even then it gives some impressive results. Do you find it logical we can see particles always describe smooth paths and obey classical physics when we collide them in particle accelerators and plot their trajectories, but only "inside" the atom they start to behave like ghosts? QM works, it has rules based on statistics and produces results that fit statistics, but those equations say nothing about mechanics and interaction. Where does classical physics fail exactly? Do you think it is impossible to describe subatomic interaction based on known forces, why? How do you know it is not a physical spin? Perhaps not, but how curious is then that we can model it as if it is physical spin. Do you find it surprising such quantum property can be modeled with classical physics? By the way, as far as I can see, and what you later suggest yourself, we do have all those equations ...for angular momentum in magnetic field, magnetic moment for orbiting electron or spinning electron. Are you saying we have equations, or not? Are you saying we have equations, but they do not work? I'm saying that I might explain Hydrogen atom and more, once we can combine the electrostatic and magnetic equations of motions into one. Such equations do not seem to exist, the equations that will combine Coulomb + Lorentz + Magnetic Torque + Spin Dipole Moment. Without such COMPLETE attempt at modeling subatomic interaction it is not scientifically wise to give up of such possibility, there is simply no evidence that points classical physic is unable to model it.

Gre, According to my understanding, you are on the right track.

Yes, sometimes they are same, but that means at all other times they are not the same, and that is enough to classify it as unpredictable. Of course this goes much deeper if we are to consider what "rational" really means, what is "purpose" and "benefit", what is "good" and "bad". To keep it simple we can stick to mathematics and say that rational is 2+2=4, while emotional can be different to that. Rational = predictable (deterministic) Emotional = unpredictable (chaotic/random) - "Humans are controlled by subconsciousness, feelings and emotions almost randomly, while awareness is an illusion created by consciousness to make them feel as if they really wanted to do, and try to justify, what they just did." (Lizard-Man) preprogrammed response = emotional? preprogrammed response = instinctive? deliberate thought processes = rational? Do you mean to say emotional response is "pre-programmed" in a way that it makes it predictable? How do you differentiate "deliberate thought processes" from "preprogrammed response", what is different about them, the place they originate? the way how they form or propagate? Basically, how do you know the mechanics is different? how do you know something was deliberate, can we measure it?

I think I agree with that, thought not sure how you define 'predictable effects' that can lead to 'unpredictable response'. Can that definition address the question if these entities have emotions: a.) Fly b.) Tree c.) Chicken d.) Beef e.) Dog f.) Pork I'm afraid the border line between emotion and non emotion is blurred as much as the line between live and inanimate matter, it might even be the same line. Emotion is certainly some "state" that will impact physical reaction. The question is, can we accept that state to be fixed and material? If so, than we can substitute emotions with logical gates, but it will be deterministic, fully predictable. However emotion that is predictable is almost contradiction. Certainly one of the main characteristics of 'emotional response' is that it means opposite to 'rational response'. =============================================== Let me try some more concrete definition.... Feeling = internal/external sensation in the present, including touch, smell... Emotions = past internal state of memorized feelings (experiences) Emotions are all the experiences, intensified more or less depending on the amount of time you spend "processing" them. These 'states' are operands (filters) inside the general recursive computation that includes current feelings (sensations/perceptions) and past(emotions/experiences). The result is fed back to next iteration together with new current feelings/perceptions/sensations, and so on. Basically, I'm trying to say that emotion and feelings is not just nice music and poetry, but also when you drink hot milk and burn your tongue. It is a FEELING that you will REMEMBER and next time when you see a glass of yogurt, you will first blow at it... just because you still carry that EMOTION (sensation) of pain when you tried to drink something white. Intelligence is the one to teach later that not all what is white is hot milk. If fly can apparently differentiate what is good and bad for it, then it is not only consciousness, but it even processes it's perceptions and "emotions" in such way that we can say it cleverly dodges our attempts to catch it, and it can outsmart even the most intelligent humans, right? Luck or Intelligence?

Yes, I agree with that. Let me propose new answer. Motion is an effect of e/m and gravity fields interaction. The true description of motion is a rate of change of linear and angular momentum, therefore the attribute to decide the "amount" of motion - it's acceleration - is mass. Hence, my best guess is that Newton's "unbalanced force" refers to difference in mass, as equal forces with different mass produce different acceleration. I like what DrDNA said as well. That is, kind of, what I meant to say here too. I also agree with OP that 1st law only makes confusion. Worse even, we really have no idea what in the world mass is and where that inertia thing comes from. Motion is easy, but how does an object actually achieve mass?

I think you are referring to 'conservation' of momentum, I was talking about balanced/unbalanced forces and referring to what OP said about what Newton said: What is your understanding of Newton's first law? "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."

So' date=' you still manage to believe in God, even with all that proposed knowledge of yours, eh? Anyway, I think you already addressed your statement when you later contradicted to it, by saying this: -"I can synthesize any number of compounds in the lab that will spontaneously polymerize; even some with nucleobases attached... // ....HOWEVER, these things, after they have 'spontaneously polymerized', do NOT necessarily "self replicate" or undergo the process of self replication." [b']NECESSARILY[/b], my friend, makes the whole difference here.... millions of years... billions... infinity... With infinity, NOT NECESSARILY = EVENTUALLY. ok? Pay attention! Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html - "...If it sounds hideously unlikely, be aware that some Harvard researchers, including Harvard Medical School's Jack Szostak, have managed exactly that. Mixing some fatty acids and DNA in a test tube of water, they found that the lipid molecules formed a crude ring around the information-rich core. Even more strikingly, nucleotides added to the solution successfully entered the cell and replicated the DNA within a day."