Le Repteux

To me, Goëdel's theorem means that the universe has no special meaning, that we can give it one if we wish, but that we will never be able to prove it. Applying it to the mind is not completely wrong if we consider that life has thus no particular meaning either, but it does not permit to discover the principle of intelligence, which should be comprehensible even if it is the intelligence who tries to comprehend itself. It is not possible to comprehend infinity because we cannot observe it and thus study it, but it is possible to comprehend things that we can observe, even if it is ourselves, and this is what I am trying to do while associating conscience to resistance to change, because observing their resistance is the easiest way of observing things at work. Did you throw a glance at the topic about mass that I initiated?

Again, the excerpt from Hofstadter's book fits with my own definition of conscience, except for its physical part. If you link conscience to the resistance a material body offers to any change in direction or in speed, then you realize that the brain is made of molecules that resist the same way, and that their atoms and components also resist the same way. The difficult part is to link this physical phenomenon to a psychological one: our own resistance to change. This is what I do in the topic that I wanted you to consult, and I suggest that you consult the following one too if you want to understand the whole thing. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83590-look-ma-no-maths/

Hofstader's Strange loop makes sense to me, but his explanation is too philosophical for me (I did not read all the book either, but only comments and critics). To explain it, I need something more physical, something like the action/reaction process we observe when we manipulate a body. To say it frankly, I think that the consciousness process is due to the resistance to change of our automatisms. Here is what I said about that resistance on another topic. Tell me what you think of it. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83736-look-ma-no-mind/

OK, let us take for granted that animals also have intuitions, and let us try to describe the process more precisely. Let us assume also that intuitions serve to initiate new actions in the perspective of learning how to execute them properly by means of a trial and error process. Now, if those intuitions are not issued from such a process, and that the only other thing that mind is able to do is execute automatic actions, like memorization or calculations, where do these intuitions come from? Could they for instance come from a random process that mind would have developed while evolving to face the future changes in its natural environment?

Are you sure they do that consciously? If they did, I suppose that they would have to learn it, no? But birds know how to build a nest without having to learn it, it is instinctive. Rats learn by immediate reward too, if there is no reward at the end of the maze, they do not have anything to learn. You cannot tell a rat that it will be rewarded tomorrow and demand that it learns something now. Only humans can do that. I still think that it takes a human to imagine taking a risk for a future reward, even if he also can accept an immediate one. To learn something, we have to imagine a reward, which manifests itself through a good feeling or a pleasure, and to take a risk too. If it has never been done, a future move is always risky, and we need a little push to decide ourselves, what we call a good intuition, which might not be as good as we had expected, but if the risk is not too large, trying new things might be more helpful than not to. But there is more to it, because if it works a bit, then we will be motivated to repeat the new move, which means that we will be able to improve it, and if we repeat it many times, we will not have to think about it any more, which means that it has been automated. This is how I think that we proceed to learn or to try new things, we need a good intuition and we need that this good feeling coincides with the feeling we have when we execute what we had imagined. What do you think of that idea Acme?

Animals and humans take instinctive risks since they both have instincts, but only humans take conscious risks. Animals do not speculate with their money when they know they can loose it for example. This is what I meant by taking more risks, though I admit risk taking is hard to measure. For the same reason, learning is different for an animal or for a human. Learning needs a constraint and a reward: animals need those concretely and immediately, whereas humans can imagine them in the future. Imagination and conscience have something in common, they both concern what we intend to do in the future, and they both concern risk taking. How come? Is it the same phenomeneon, and if so, why two names?

You are right Acme, I had not read all the article, but now I have, and I still think that humans take more risks than animals. The study shows that animals who take more risks are also more curious, which is a behavior that helps the learning process. But which animal can learn better than humans? Learning is a human affair, and if risk is associated to it, then humans take more risks. But how does it work? How the process of learning is associated with the way we take our risks?

I am not sure this is the right thinking. Humans take more risks than animals, which means to me that the risk taking nature is profitable to intelligence, not to instinct. "If we risk nothing we get nothing" only applies to humans. To me, an intuition is only a way for our mind to force us into action, because we are intelligent and we know that a risk is risky, but what we do not know is that it is more profitable to risk than not to risk, providing that the risk is not too dangerous. Scientists know that their intuitions might not work, but if a little voice tells them that they will, then they might try them, otherwise, we would not have all those discoveries and inventions that facilitate our lives.

Of course we need to be optimistic when we take a chance, this is why the word "good" always appears before the word "intuition", but I am interested in the way the brain produces chance, and in the usefulness of such a process in our minds. When we look at the future, even if it is a speculative moove in itself, if we take a decision, it is always when we hope that it will work, never when we beleive that it will not. Any decision regarding the future has to be optimistic, otherwise we would never moove, isn't it?

Hi everybody, I think that intuitions are the result of our mind being able to speculate, to take chances, in case a new idea would work better than the old one. Of course, such a liberty of action must be restricted so that we do not hurt ourselves, and this is probably why we usually choose ideas that are not too different from the old ones, and why we apply them progressively, but what kind of mind mechanism allows us to speculate with our ideas? Do we have a chance game going on in our brain? And if it is so, where is it located?

Hi everybody, Its me again, with a subject related to the one on mass entitled "Look ma, no maths". It is related by means of the principle of mass that the small steps account for. If mass is due to resistance to the change in frequency of the steps that induces the inertial constant motion of the atoms, then this principle might have something to do with our own psychological resistance to change because it induces our constant automatisms too. We have the bad habbit to disqualify our own resistance, because we rely on the resistance of orthers to detect our own one, and because we accuse them to resist without noticing that they need our resistance to do that, but the resistance of the atoms is not disqualifying at all, it is simply an action/reaction resistance: without this resistance, we would have no mass, we would accelerate instantly, and the bodies around us would not have any materiality. What if we tried to consider our own resistance as normal for a moment? Can we, or are we too subjective to do that? How could we describe the process of thinking considering that our ideas are only subjective and that we absolutely have to resist to other's ideas if we want to develop our own? If we consider that our ideas are all automatisms, then how do they change if they resist to change the same way a body does? A question that brings us back to finding how the small step's frequency changes if it resists to change. To solve that equation, I had the idea of considering how a specie changes even if it has to preserve its main characteristics: it uses chance. It changes if, by chance, a propper mutation happens to one of its members. Then what if the change in direction and speed of an atom's steps was due to chance, and what if changing our ideas was due to chance also. If it is so, it means that I had this idea by chance and that you might agree with it if I am lucky. But what kind of mechanism could produce chance in our brain, and what would be the use for such a mechanism in an intelligent brain? Could it be inherent to intelligence? Could it be the secret that explains its impredictability?

This animation that I borrowed from wiki gave me an idea: if the black dot could make small steps instead of going at a constant pace, we could see the doppler effect varry with the steps, and if we could place another dot somewhere in front of it, and give it the possibility to move with small steps too, we could see it follow the doppler effect and produce its own waves at the same time it feels the incomming waves. Anybody knows somebody who is able to make the algorithm?

Again, the question of the origin is a philosophical one. Not being able to observe the internal structure of a particle might mean that we are not looking at the phenomenon the right way. The small steps mean that doppler effect is a cause instead of being only an effect, but they also mean that they are the cause of the doppler effect. Doppler effect would thus be part of an induction phenomenon instead of being only a relative one. And it is the same for aberration if you consider that it participates to the induction of the small steps, because the direction of the incident light pulses would then be given by the direction of the steps accelerating simultaneously towards direct and indirect light: direct light inducing their inertial motion, and indirect light inducing their rotational motion.

What we know is that electrons are exchanged, and we also know that they are not absorbed by the nucleus, so what moves the nucleus whent we push on a molecule is not the electrons themselves, but a force between the electrons and the neucleuses, which means there is some kind of energy traveling between electrons and nucleuses. What we do not know is how that energy, which should also go in all directions, is not observed outside the molecule. What I suggests is that if this energy can link the neucleuses, then it should be able to produce their steps. For the newtonian mechanics, the formulation is the same, but I think that we can replace m with r, which would represent the resistance to the change in the step's frequency. Do you think we can? How about trying to formulate the steps since we are there? How about an endless loop like the software ones? Do we need a new calculus notation to do that?

OK Mordred, I think I see what you meant. The problem is that this law applies to molecular matter, but not to atoms. If you throw an atom on another one, it might link with it instead of bumping away, and this is precisely why the steps are possible between atoms, but not between molecules. Sorry, I was not clear enough in my premisses. The reason why particles can see doppler effect is that they were synchronized at the origin, and that they managed to stay synchronized since then while nullating doppler effect as soon as it manifested itself. In other words, if all atoms of the same kind actually caries the same frequency spectrum, they can use that spectrum to detect doppler effect. When we detect doppler effect from galaxies, we need to proceed this way, we need to know the right frequencies of the atoms we are observing. To do so, we only have to register their frequencies when they are at rest with regard to our intruments. I never said that particles could exchange mass, but that with the small steps, mass was the product of their interaction. More precisely, particles exchange energy that caries information, and transform that energy and information in motion. I am trying to, and I try to be as clear as possible, but it is normal that we cannot evolve instantly since our interaction is not instantaneous. I compare the light that produces the steps between the atoms to the non radiating electrons that links atoms in a molecule. If we accept that we do not see this interaction when we observe a molecule though we know the link is at work, then I guess we can accept that we cannot see the light that produces the steps even if they are real.

Of course, the theory says that electrons jump to a more energetic quantum level, and emit light while getting back spontaneously on a the less energetic level. The kind of light that they emit at that moment has the property of exciting another atom the same way. But we do not know what happens to the electrons when they are not excited, for example when their molecule is on inertial motion. The only thing we know is that it does not emit light, but it does not mean that there is no light exchanged between the atoms at that moment, it might be that this light is spent to induce the small steps, the residual light being too weak to be detected, or being different from the light we can observe with our instruments, a kind of light that can only produce motion, as for gravitationnal motion for instance.

I use the term light to characterise the mediator of the small steps, even when we know that, for atoms, it is supposed to be electron's job, simply because it is easier to imagine doppler effect with light than with electrons. If neutrinos have components, what links them should produce doppler effect, which could explain their mass if the small steps are real.

I was talking of the neutrino's components, not the neutrinos themselves. The same thing happens with molecules, who do not proceed by small steps with one another, but whose components, their atoms, does. Now, the reason why molecules do not emit sufficient light to produce small steps is more difficult to answer, except in saying that the electrons that links them do not radiate any light because they are on a stable path, which does not explain why they do not radiate.

It accelerates to nullify doppler effect, and it slows down for the same reason. If it comes to a stop, it is because particle a was at rest when it began mooving. I will guess that you are talking of particle a this time. So, particle a does the same thing as particle b, it acts to nullify doppler effect, and if it comes to a stop, it is because particle b came to a stop before. No, but as I said, any constant interaction should produce doppler effect if it is not instantaneous. This is exactly what the small steps mean: the inertia of a particle is given by the light itself, not by the other particle. Once it has emitted its light, the other particle can desappear and the light it had already emitted will do the job nevertheless. It is the same for gravity: a planet can desappear and its gravity will continue to act on other planets untill there is no more action comming in. This is an interesting one: I think that this principle does not apply to a particle as seen from other particles, because I think that particles are able to exchange their own information better than we can extirp it from them. On the other hand, I cannot see how they could overcome any resistance to a change in their steps without the hasard being involved somehow, which might explain some of the uncertainty we observe. Yes they both simultaneously see the other, but if one of them moves, it sees doppler effect immediately, whereas the other does not. The same way we see a moving light source departing from us: doppler effect on its light pulses. Exact! This is why I said that they would face mass increase if we tried to accelerate them close to the speed of light, which is the case for the energy needed to accelerate particles when they reach their peak. I do not get that one, can you elaborate a bit. For the atoms, I think that this delay should be half the energy of their molecular link transformed in frequency, but for their components, it should be much shorter. Changing the length of the steps changes the speed of the molecule the atoms are part of. Your 2d distance is calculated as if particle a could drive particle b, but this is not the case, because as soon as its light has left a particle, it becomes completely independant of that particle. Remember that you must take the place of one of the particle to understand what it sees, and that it cannot see the relative position of the other particle as we see it on the screen: it only sees doppler effect, because it only sees light penetrating directly into its eyes, if I can say so.

Yes, if neutrinos have components, then these components have their own components, and their smaller steps will produce the quantized light (or energy) pulses that the neutrino's components need to stay linked. The only model I have for the moment is my hand simulation, and my main argument is that it explains mass and motion at the same time, so the only thing that we can do now, besides interesting someone to make the calculations, is try to imagine how the doppler effect could produce the steps, and imagine how a push could change them. We are in the situation of Copernic thinking that heliocentrism was interesting but having only concentric circles to show. We need a Kepler to beleive he was right and to do some more precise calculations, and then a Galileo to make more precise observations with new instruments. He saw more stars, Jupiter's satellites, phases of Venus, spots on a rotating sun, mountains on the moon, all these observations telling him that the sky was not more perfect than the earth. But how come don't I feel the earth's motion, he told himself, and he imagined relativity and inertia, and scientific method. At first, this heliocentric stuff was only a difference in the point of view, but it took a long time before it was accepted. The small steps are also issued from such a small difference, but they might take the same time to be accepted even if they are real. What could have been done to accelerate heliocentrism's acceptation? Probably nothing.

No, but if neutrinos have components that interact by means of quantised energy, then there must be doppler effect between them, which means that they might obey to the principle of the small steps. The problem of the components will never be solved since, when a new particle is found, you cannot tell if it has some or not until you can break it. It is almost a philosophic question. To my opinion, the small steps do no change the goalposts at all: there is no new physical law involved, no new particle, no new energy, the only thing hidden behind the curtain are the steps, because we cannot see them, at least for the moment. Discovering that they are real would thus not change the things we know, but it might change the way we look at things, for instance the way we look at our brain, which is an interacting body too, and which visibly resists to change while evolving at a constant pace, but this is a different subject.

Oh! You meant when I said that it was as if an atom could prewiew a light pulse I suppose. I was saying that to explain that there was no resistance within the steps because they represented an inertial motion. In fact, I do not think that the steps can accelerate without spending energy, but since they have to decelerate right after, I suppose that they would reabsorb the energy that they spent while accelerating. It is the first time that someone forces me to look that precisely at the steps, so my answer is improvised, but it seems logical to me, is it for you? I was not looking at it this way, in fact, I do not like the word prediction because one of its meaning is that you poped something out of a hat by magic, but if you insist... I said that there had to be relativistic effects in the steps between the two atoms because light was concerned, but I also said that I was taking the point of view of one of the two atoms involved, which meant that the observers were no more humans, but atoms, and for them, a step is not an internal mechanism when they look at the other atom, it is internal only when they look at what is happening to the steps between their own components. If you take the point of view of their molecule though, you have to account for gravity, and this is why I did so, because we know that molecules do not proceed with small steps between them except maybe when they propagate a physical wave, and because we know that they are affected by gravity.

Hi Mordred, I missed your edition: As long as this photon can justify the molecular energy that links the two atoms, I do not see the problem. Since the photon is more energetic than needed, the atom will accelerate away to lower its energy, thats all. It is the same kind of step that produced doppler effect on that photon, the only difference being that one of the atoms has to catch time, whereas the other has to lose some. It interacts because it has to maintain the molecular link. There is no energy loss since the work that produces the doppler effect is the same as the one that produces the steps. The same type as the one that links the atoms together inside a molecule: EM force between an electron and its nucleus. This is close to a philosophical question. My answer is that, if the small steps are real, then any particle should have components to justify its mass, which means that, according to the steps, there will always be a smaller particle. Since its seems that neutrinos have a mass, they thus need components to justify it. I explained yesterday how small steps would account for relativity if it is what preoccupies you, but if it is their philosophical part that you question, then my answer is that the atoms do not have to know more than us about their inertial motion to interact together, they only have to take doppler effect for granted. I said that I preferred to wait before introducing the gravity part of the small steps, and this is what is in cause in your question again, so I will give you a hint: since atoms can react to doppler effect, they can react to cosmic doppler effect too, though in a much weaker way because that light is much weaker, so if I elaborate a bit, in the same way that they produce simultaneously the doppler effect that induces their step, they also produce the cosmic doppler effect while they simultaneously try to nullify it with their steps. Doppler effect between them in a molecule produces their inertial motion, and cosmic doppler effect from all around them produces simultaneously all their gravitationnal motions. But if a body can rotate around itself, aberration appears and affects the motion the same way doppler effect does, which is the case for gaseous molecules, for plasma, and of course for stellar and galactic systems. No, but light is. Inertial mass to begin with, and if we succed with formulating the maths for those small steps, then it might help us to study their relativist or their gravitationnal effect.

My model suggests that the mass of the neutrino comes from the interaction between its components, it says nothing about its interaction with other particles except that any particle resists to change its trajectory when it encounters another one. An interesting deduction from my model is that the small steps cannot overcome the speed of their interaction, which is the speed of light. To keep its frequency constant, a step that increases in length also inceases in speed, and if the maximum speed attained during its acceleration approaches the speed of light, its resistance to further acceleration in the same direction will increase too. In other words, the relativistic effect on the mass of the system will be caused by an internal mechanism, no need for an external reference frame to explain it, thus no need for an external reference frame to explain length contraction and time dilation either. I do not know if you noticed this particularity, but once its light has been emitted by one of the two atoms, it becomes independant of its motion, so that this atom can change the direction or the length of its steps while its light pulses travels at a constant pace towards the other atom. To simplify the study, the two atoms of my animation do not rotate one around the other, but they could, and light would then produce a transverse force on their steps because of the aberration effect, this force being delayed as is the force issued from doppler effect because of the time that light takes to go from one atom to the other. The small steps between the two atoms already take into account Newton's laws: they go in strait line and resist to their acceleration, they integrate the forces from all direction at a time, and they react to a similar system of atoms the same way the action/reaction principle works. But we cannot use those laws to calculate the steps because what we need to know is about doppler effect explaining mass. We need a way to formulate small steps composing longer ones, and a way to formulate smaller light pulses composing longer ones, both of them being affected differently by the doppler effect produced at a different time by those different steps. I wonder if a specific simulation software would not be the best way to solve our problem!

I was not bad at maths, but it was a long time ago. I had one year in engineering before swithching to architecture, and I loved it. I can easily calculate doppler effect using the known formulation, but the small steps are not that easy to formulate, at least for me. Like each one of our own steps, those steps start at zero speed with regard to the other atom at rest, then accererate to a maximum speed, and finally decelerate back to zero. To be computed precisely, I think that they would have to be divided in smaller portions of equal frequency but different length to account for the acceleration. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the components of those atoms would be required to do if they had to proceed with the same kind of steps between them. But doppler effect does not do the job at the place of the atoms, and if we want to know what happens when the system is accelerated from the outside, we have to add resistance to acceleration into the formulation, which means resistance to a change in the frequency of the steps, which has to stay the same while their length or their direction changes, otherwise the light that the two atoms emit would not keep its frequency. One way of doing this is by waiting for a new step to introduce a change, which would cause a small delay in the acceleration, thus explaining the resistance. I suppose that a good mathematician would already have a good idea of the whole formulation, but I do not.