sciwiz12

http://www.itis.ethz.ch/virtual-population/tissue-properties/database/low-frequency-conductivity/ Data base of tissue properties, in particular low frequency conductivity. http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae512.cfm There, according to physics there are no magnetic field insulators, even weak magnetic fields penetrate the skull, my bad. I didn't know it was even up for debate but fine, I was mistaken, there, magnets get through just fine. Happy? Can we continue now?

Sorry, when I said nanite I wasn't referring to microscopic robots, which is why I tried to avoid saying nanobots. I'm no nano tech expert but I'm at least up to speed on advances in nano tech and also the problems with programmable matter, which I know is kind of a separate thing. Anyway, as far as sources I have a few in mind, I'm really lazy when it comes to citations so I'd have to work up the energy first and I'm not particularly motivated. I'm not going to say that I don't need to cite sources because I'm just right, that would be stupid of me. However, please don't make me go find my sources, it'd be such a pain. Anyway I'm not saying magnetic fields can't penetrate the skull, but from both personal experience and subsequent reading the skull is slightly resistant to electromagnetic fields. Obviously not so resistant that EEGs can't pick up brainwaves from inside the skull, nor so much so that MRI and fMRI can't penetrate the skull. But it is resistant enough that small magnets and 9volt batteries won't get through. Which is slightly disappointing, because I was really hyped to stimulate my PFC when I was younger, but alas and alack the current would rather travel across the skin than penetrate the skull. At any rate, the reason I asked is because I was watching a documentary on nano-technology and one of the labs used magnets outside of the body to pilot a nano (I feel like machine would be the wrong word here) needle to deliver an injection to a very specific region of the eye, however at the time of filming they hadn't moved to living subjects. I just imagined piloting nano electrodes to regions around key areas of the brain to stimulate those regions, and the likelihood that such a reaction would have a positive effect on "growth" in those regions. It's a tad pseudo-sciency to say the least, but a few experiments have suggested that electrical and magnetic stimulation of certain regions associated with mathematical skill, or certain regions of the PFC might correlate with higher test scores than the control group. Again I will cite my sources if you twist my arm about it, I know it's the right thing to do, but the laziness is strong within me. Also I really couldn't care less about ethics if I tried. People do whatever they want and other people who disagree try to stop them, that's all ethics is to me. I don't care if it's ethical to alter brains, or genes, etc... All that matters is do I feel like it, is it possible, do I have the resources, can I get away with it. If all of those boxes are checked of the rest is a moot point.

OK, yeah, I see that it was a mistake to try anything one more time, we apparently just aren't even communicating on the same level, I say something and you focus on the most irrelevant slices of my position. Although I'll agree that I should definitely cite my sources, sure, but here's my reverse ask, why the fuck should I bother? Is there some magical point at which I'm going to say something in a specific enough way that you look at it and go, "huh, you know actually that's a good point, I think if I could look at these particular sources directly with my own eyes I would be inclined to agree." Or, "you know, I don't think I fully agree but I think the better perspective is somewhere in between our perspectives." Because so far I keep seeing rehashing of the same arguments phrased slightly differently and it honestly wasn't convincing the first time, or any of the subsequent times. I was hoping that I could phrase my position in a different way to elicit a different response, I got maybe one thing that was different, kind of, but this was a failed experiment on my part, clearly those that disagree are just going to keep responding the same fundamental concept indignantly until I just stop the conversation by leaving. I would have liked to make some sort of progress, I really don't know why I'm surprised at this point honestly, I should just expect it at this point. Everywhere you go, no matter how intelligent and we'll educated the group, some faction will always hold contrasting views and resist any form of compromise and persuasion. FCK it, screw me for even bothering, who gives a FCK about advancing the discourse, it's all about being right and mocking anyone who disagrees because people who disagree are stupid. Clearly. Whatever, I'm done, have fun.

Danke

Hey, there's a valid point you raise there, but that seems to me like an important distinction. There are some publications regarding the reasonable ineffectiveness of math in some areas like biology and engineering where for various reasons the utility of the mathematics that we use doesn't do a very good job of describing the patterns in the universe. Still now that you mention it I think that's what this entire argument has been about really. There's the math humans do and the "math" or rather the appearance of order and consistency inherent in the universe. If you call the thing that people do math, then math is created and possibly subjective. If you call the laws and order in the universe math then clearly it's objective but also we don't necessarily understand it very well because the way we're describing it is often clunky and inefficient. So the real question isn't whether math is objectively real, the question is or should be which do you call mathematics. Is math the stuff people do with numbers or is math the ordered consistency of the universe. I would argue it is the work of humans, because it cannot be known that the order and consistency will hold. For instance you can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, because there's always some small chance that in defiance of every rule mankind has conceived it will do something we could not have predicted or even imagined. So if we say math is the order and consistency of the universe you're making a very bold assumption that the universe is, at it's core, ordered and consistent, which is only probabilistically knowable. You could say that as long as the consistency and order hold, then we can treat them as certain, and I would roughly agree, but it's safer to simply say that mathematics is the work humans do to understand the order of the universe based on various assumptions which may or may not hold.

I'm aware that electrical stimulation of certain regions of the brain can insight various reactions, and I have recently seen work done with nano machines so small that they could not contain internal electrical components and so were piloted by magnets outside of the human body. Here is my query, what are your thoughts on the potential of piloting injected nanites to various regions of the brain and generating an external field which would cause the nanite to produce a small charge and stimulate regions of the brain through non-invasive means? I mean you still could theoretically run into the problem of getting magnetic fields through the resistant human skull, so maybe the specific approach I just suggested is infeasible, but what is the possibility of having nano machines pass small currents through blood vessels to brain regions. I guess it wouldn't necessarily make much sense considering that the aqueous blood plasma could conduct the charge away from the brain possibly(or I'm showing off my ignorance). Alternatively it is difficult to pass nano-machines through the blood-brain barrier without causing internal hemmoraging. Is it maybe possible to have the machines pass through in parts and assemble chemically on the other side of the barrier? Like have the various components of a machine hitch a ride on chemicals accepted through the blood brain barrier and then react forming bonds to assemble itself? No, that's just stupid and dangerous. Although what if you could use certain chemicals in the blood stream to form a sort of battery, no, I'm being stupid, I'll shut up now.

I'm sorry, I've been meaning to dig a lot deeper into physics, but something just occurred to me. The fundamental forces acting upon distant objects, quantum entanglement of particles across vast distances, is it possible that space is an illusion. Rather, is it possible that we could perceive space and distance as real on a super atomic level, and yet that the universe could be better explained if distance were not real on some subatomic level, that distance could be some sort of trick. I mean mathematically you can represent three dimensions with three coordinates. I could almost imagine some kind of singular... Thing which has three different kinds of properties with various values that could give rise to an illusion of space, and yet if space were not real then two objects could intersect in such a way that their spatial properties would seem to place them light years apart while in truth they merely have slight changes in three properties while everything in the universe is actually in one... "Location".

I will give it one final go. People see the face of Jesus in toast for the same reasons they see math in the universe. Human brains look for patterns, mathematics assigns names to patterns such that when the pattern is observed it can be described in reference to mathematics. The patterns themselves are real because we seem to live in a highly ordered and organised universe. At the same time they are not real because the universe does not consult mathematical laws in order to form patterns in the same way bread does not pull information about the face of Jesus in order to form a pattern. Math is only "discovered" because the universe is very ordered, but the universe doesn't need math to be ordered, humans need the universe to be ordered in order to create math from it.

Bump?

You might have heard of it, the devil's breath, schopolamine. If you haven't there's a documentary on Vice on YouTube that discusses the effects of the drug. Now I'm still studying chemistry and haven't had time to get very deep into it yet, nor neurology yet. I'm getting to it, anyway, so here's my question, to the best of your knowledge are the claims valid? For those who don't know, the drug supposedly kills you in even moderately high doses, but in sufficiently low doses inhibits activity in the frontal or prefrontal cortex rendering the victim unable to refuse commands and unable to form memories of the interval of time in which they are under the drug's effects. If the claims are, to the best of your knowledge, valid, could you theoretically implant lasting suggestions into the minds of the victims? I mean either in the first dose or after multiple sessions and administrations? Here's why I ask, if the base claims are true then this is unlike hypnosis under which a patient can resist commands that go against the person's nature. In theory if you could use the drug to implant long term suggestions as well, which follow the same basic principal that at least after multiple sessions the long term suggestions take precedent over the subject's will, and if anyone could get a hold of it, any person could potentially take over the world, or at least large portions of it. I mean, say for instance I kidnap Tom, after multiple sessions Tom's will is supplanted and he believes he is my servant. I then command Tom to kidnap Lisa and repeat the process. I then command Tom and Lisa to kidnap two new people and again, repeat the process. Having brainwashed a certain number of people I could pool resources including human labor to grant myself greater wealth and power, which I can use to provide my victim's with training in various covert, martial, tactical, and technical areas. Having sufficiently trained a sufficient number of victims I can turn my brainwashing methods into an almost industrial covert brainwashing factory. I can use my resources and victims to acquire more valuable human assets, filling the lives of influential politicians and businessmen with brainwashed sleeper agents. I could then acquire those more influential targets and worm my way up to greater positions of influence and authority. I could then scale up my production even further, expand into other territories and regions, and eventually stage multiple simultaneous cous. Coup's? Anyway, you get the idea. Theoretically if I were not discovered in time I could stage a hostile world take over in what? 40 years if I'm being conservative? Now I'm not planning to do this (too poor to illegally import mind control drugs) but I want to know if it all checks out in theory?

I give up. This is the same head bashing I would expect to encounter in a religious debate, not on a scientific forum such as this. I simply don't have the patience nor the energy to continue to engage in such a fruitless endeavour. You can go on believing whatever you want. I'm really not trying to be an elitist or take any sort of high ground, I simply see a lot of unsupported declarations and lack of logical standards. Maybe from your perspective I'm guilty of the same crime, I hardly see how that is the case as I've attempted to avoid matter of fact declarations and holes in logic but at this point I simply don't have the mental energy to keep bashing my head against this proverbial wall. However, I would propose the following: I will review philosophical, formal, and mathematical logic as well as techniques of proper argumentation, sound rebuttal, and fallacies. I don't believe I've committed any logical errors but I'm sure you seem to think that I have done so. Here's my counter ask however. Please, for the love of there is no God, review logic and the principals of sound argumentation as well as possible fallacies. I'll admit I'm a bit rusty, but you must admit that if I can seem entirely sound and flawlessly rational from my perspective yet somehow flawed and misguided from your perspective and vice versa that it is entirely possible that either of us may be in error. So I would urge you to please review your stuff and practice making sound and concrete arguments. I would really hate to cross your paths again and be subjected the the same unsupported matter of fact declarations. I guess I must just be delusional or something because it really does seem like your arguments take advantage of serious leaps in logic. Anyway, please do that, and if you refuse that's on you but if you do refuse you really can't pretend to claim a rational and intellectual high ground.

Arc, you simply declared that alien races would use the same system of mathematics because they must adhere to the same physical laws. I cannot accept this claim at face value until you prove that any sufficiently intelligent race under the same physical laws regardless of sensation and communication must necessarily develop the same systems of formal logic and mathematics. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong but you've declared it very matter of factly without showing why this should necessarily be the case. Under the same logic why wouldn't they all speak English? I mean they exist in the same universe under the same physical laws.

Also fine, if you want to declare any words I use to belong to some branch of mathematics I should tell you there's a completely non-mathematical way to describe the shape of any object: I can draw it. No mathematical terms are required, just a paint brush, or I could sculpt it in clay. Also it's faulty reasoning anyway. Even if I needed math to describe an object I need English to describe the world, that doesn't make words real, nor even that which words describe. For instance, I need words to describe the color of the ocean as blue, and you might argue that the oceans would be blue regardless which technically wouldn't be true because oceans aren't really any color,I digress. So you could apply the same reasoning you've applied to math. Words describe things in nature, I had to discover those things, thus words are objectively real. However I can also describe an invisible pink unicorn. Now if words were objectively real, since I described an invisible pink unicorn with words, it must therefore be real. "Hold on!" You might counter, "you're just using objectively real words to describe something that doesn't exist, that doesn't make words not real!" To which I say: blhkrjgfla. It is a word that refers to a specific object that by definition can't be described and doesn't exist but isn't nothing. "You just made that up!" You may counter. In fact I did, I made up a thing and a new word to describe it using the same "objectively real" system by which I can describe the color of the ocean, the feeling of the soil, and the taste of chicken. I really don't know how else to get this accross, your arguments are invalid. That's what I'm saying here, words can fit just as easily into most of your arguments. Words describe things that are real and it's almost impossible to describe certain things without words, but just because it's useful for describing things doesn't make it objectively real. My words aren't bound to the same rules of nature as the objects they describe, neither is math which follows its own rules, at times in spite of knowing that it's concepts cannot exist. If it were objectively real it would be bound to the same rules by which all objectively real things are bound, but is not. I really don't know what more I can say on the subject.

Here, let me use more formal logic. If a system is objectively real, then we will be able to observe any aspect of that system in nature. If an element of a system does not and cannot exist in nature, the system cannot be objectively real. Imaginary numbers cannot exist in physical reality and do not exist in physical reality. Imaginary numbers are a necessary element within our mathematical system. Thus mathematics contains elements which cannot and do not exist within nature, and because systems whose necessary elements do not exist within nature cannot be objectively real, mathematics cannot be objectively real. There, formal logic. Either show that imaginary numbers exist, show that systems which necessarily contain non-real elements can still be objectively real, or show that imaginary numbers are not necessary to a complete understanding of mathematics. Alternatively concede the point.

Daedalus: That was a really solid effort, literally from a certain perspective, I commend your attempt at rigor. Still the contention makes a few assertions that, A:lack imagination and B: as far as I'm aware have no basis in truth other than the fact that you said it was so. For instance: "geometric arrangements... Can only be described mathematically". Now if you said "can" be described mathematically I would have agreed but you've given no proof of the only part of your claim beyond asserting that such is the case. If that were true it would be impossible for me to describe in plain English the atom at every location by name and position according to some reference point without the use of numbers. As it so happens such a feat is technically possible, "there is a carbon atom to the left of the reference, below the reference, and positioned at the leading edge" you get the idea. Now I may take an absurdly long time to describe the geometry in this way but it could in theory be done. This once more alludes to the problem I mentioned previously, most of these arguments follow the form: "math is real because obviously math is real. Therefore P=NP QED" You get the idea, it proves nothing, it only reiterates that the physical universe can mostly be described fairly accurately in most respects through the use of math. Again it's like Christian logic: "God is real because you can only describe the universe because God made it that way. Do you see how everything in nature works, it couldn't work that way if an intelligent designer hadn't intelligently designed it that way." You know, actually that's a good way to test your argument. Whatever you are about to say, imagine the people you think are the most misguided applied the same logic to prove a ludicrous claim. If you would tear it apart if it were used against you, don't bother saying it. If you can conceive of no sound way to refute it I will entertain the notion. Also, in response to TheGeckoMancer: I mean I suppose I can say, and in fact have already said pretty much the same of you. Honestly I don't know why you would waste the time it takes to type out a response just to basically say:"I know you are, but what am I?" Perhaps you felt offended by my previous post, perhaps you really and truly feel I made no relevant points worth discussing, in which case I really don't know what to tell you, because having seen your arguments I am lead to conclude we must occupy different realities where logic and reasoning have developed in entirely different and diametrically opposed fashions. Just as you declare my suppositions and contentions to be fluff so too would I regard your contentions to be weak and severely lacking in substance and merit. I mean I'm sure you're a good person, and I'm sure you know how to form a solid and robust argument, clearly in this case you have not done so. I mean if you decide it's worth the time to really throw down the gauntlet and prove before all witnesses the incontrovertible objective reality of mathematics, I would invite you to do so. I am by no means invested in the idea that math isn't objective beyond the fact that I see no compelling reason to believe otherwise. I mean honestly you'd be doing me a favor, sparing me a trip down the existential rabbit hole. However if you find that you cannot mount a truly solid defense of your position, I would encourage you that least entertain the notion that the mathematics that we employ is not objectively true, but founded on human perceptions which are subjective according to what senses are available with which to abstract and develop a formal system, which by a recursive process of observation and revision can be addended or modified to asymptotically approach objective truth without ever being truly able to reach it.

Well I'm going to only address Bill Angel's post because in replying to the other two posts I would do little but repeat myself. The refutations there are at best flimsy and nothing I haven't already from a certain perspective (mine if nothing else) addressed and I don't see that conversation going anywhere but in a complete circle. As far as the fermions go, however, that's an interesting point. Would that be similar, in principal to quantum entanglement? I'm sorry for my ignorance on the subject I just haven't had the time to explore the subject as deeply as I would like so I would defer to your experience in the matter. Never mind, I see that electrons are classified as fermions so I suspect this is the case. Well by your logic what I said must still hold true. For all fermions if they share a spatial probability distribution then they cannot have all of the same properties. I fail to see how that would invalidate my claim. To be clear, I reasoned that if you abstract away the property of an object the property is unmoored from objective reality on the premise that the objectivity of the property rested in its relationship to other properties of the same object. Now I suppose that you were attempting to argue that fermions all share these particular properties thus no property of any individual fermion was tied to its objective identity so much as to the abstract principal, if so that fell rather flat, or I missed something in your explanation. I'm not sure what you were attempting to prove, but assuming the Pauli exclusion principal and Fermi-Dirac statistics hold true then on what foundation, from what premise would you disagree? If two fermions occupy the same probabilistic distribution space, which I take to mean they have the same statistical probability of being at any given location within the same space upon examination, then they cannot share all properties in common, there must be at least one property difference such as spin, they cannot share the same characteristics unless they find themselves in separate probability space distributions. I mean like I said, maybe I'm missing the crux of your argument, but I fail to see how your contention is relevant to my claim except possibly by way of affirmation. Sorry, one final point as more responses seem to have entered the fray which both disappoint and upset me. What is upsetting here isn't that you disagree, but that your contentions are so flimsy and baseless. I've heard better arguments from Christians concerning the objective existence of God, from whom you seem to be taking a page. Your general methodologies seem to be to declare that your position is true, offer fuzzy logic along with some highly questionable claims, and you seem to be content with your matter of fact dismissals. I mean it's a pretty lamentable affair to say the least. Really? Animals can count? And that's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? Down to the single celled Eukaryotic life, if it technically qualifies as an animal it has the capacity to count? It's just really sad, this is a forum dedicated to science, yes? You are all highly intelligent rational human beings, correct? Don't insult my intelligence with such poor and meandering rationale, if you're really going to show that math is objective in nature you can do a much better job of it I should hope. I mean it's to the point that most of the comments aren't worth addressing because they don't entertain the force of a proper refutation. Either seriously address the points that have been made or concede the point, but why on earth would you expect anyone to be persuaded by such unsound arguments? Would you allow yourselves be persuaded by your own arguments? If so I would really call your rational faculties into question. Seriously, do better, it's not a huge request.

If I avoided responding to something I may apologise according to the merit of the contention in question, but as I do not know how to search a thread based on the post number I cannot assess the contention for merit, or I could but the search would seem awefully taxing, especially if the claim lacked any real substance. But yes, I am arguing that any claim that a property can be shared among distinct objects is an abstraction and thus a fabrication. The redness of apple one may be similar to the redness of apple two but it is fundamentally tied to every other property of apple one, such as distinct location in space time. The same could therefore apply to any perception of oneness, to abstract is to cut away from the objective reality by removing the unnecessary, which from another perspective could also be seen as creating a property of the mind to mirror a perceived property of reality but in the process losing the tether to that which makes the property objectively real. This is in response to studiot mostly. Here's something for cladking to consider, suppose of course that our notions of physical reality are accurate. Suppose also that there is an organism somewhere in the universe which does not sense nor perceive light, nor the sensation of touch, nor any save the sensation of gravitational and electromagnetic fields through some as of yet unimagined means. Say that such a being by it's nature weaves these sensations into a perception of it's world not as distinct and divisible parts but as a continuous field which exists everywhere at higher or lower strengths. Say that such a being evolves over many generations into an intelligent race of beings capable of devising formal systems. Now consider how such a being would create a formal system. Our concept of numerical abstractions is useful to us as a formal notation because our photon receptors and the perceptions built from that experience paint the world as one with distinct and divisible units. Even our conception of a field is defined by distinction and unitisation. Such a being would instead likely take a reversed approach. In developing a formal system it may initially take nothing as distinct. It might, as we have, start by making observations and abstracting from those observations, but the entire philosophy, the notation, everything would be born from this sense that there is no distinction, the universe is an indivisible whole with variations as a function of space and time but entirely continuous, a complete fabric. Assuming they ever formed a conception of arithmetic it would be an inversion of our own based on an intuition from continuation rather than distinction among bounded forms. Such a race might spiral into entirely different means of calculation but arrive at accurate conclusions as we have by recursive modification from observation. In fact their system might trump our own as their system might require fewer procedures or fewer divisions of the subject while arriving at results with a greater degree of precision leading to better engineering practice's and far more advanced technology in a shorter span of time. Of course such a conclusion is not necessitated, but I offer the supposition to make this point abundantly transparent: Math may very well be subjective. This notion that observation however removed from abstract conclusion ties the conclusion to objective reality is misguided. If you perceive an apple as a distinct object, if you perceive it as moving rather than perceiving simultaneous state changes in the fabric of reality, or you experience time linearly, if you experience the world as a human experiences the world and you are capable of formulating a formal system of mathematics then it will of course be akin to human mathematics, but if your perceptions are radically altered, or if you are even capable of entertaining the thought that things could be observed in radically different ways, then you can easily suppose that just because a property is seemingly observed doesn't mean that any abstractions from the seeming property are objective nor entirely accurate. You must entertain the notion that reality and mathematical descriptions of reality are only really tied by our ability to revise initial conclusions to better fit the data, and that such revisions may be crutches to keep a system built on a faulty premise functional viable despite its flaws. The ultimate implication is this: math is not real, it is a tool whose purpose is to manipulate the real through abstract imagination and calculation, but it isn't a part of reality so much as a photograph taken through an unreliable camera lens. To entertain the notion that math is objective is tantamount to declaring the infallibility of human perceptions despite being consciously aware of deep fallibilities and areas of incompatibility with reason.It is dangerous to hold that seeing makes it so.

Alright, I can see where this line of objective mathematical reasoning is coming from. One example that was given, for instance, was the rate of the acceleration of an object falling given as 32ft/s/s. This rate of acceleration would be the same without any observer to observe it, and the argument is that if a facet of nature "exists" without observers it must be an objective part of reality. There was a really good comic on Saturday morning breakfast cereal that makes a similar argument. One person argues that the beauty of math is that it is the same everywhere in the universe, and in all likelihood somewhere in the universe there is a race of aliens that has also discovered the same math we have. One example given by the first person is the counting numbers, to which the second person argues that an alien civilisation might create a new number, "splorf", that comes between 2 and 3. The first person accepts this without hesitation frustrating the second person to retaliate with a barage of mathematical questions, discovering that the first person has accepted splorf as the new three, shifting every subsequent number by one increment. The moral of the story being that the properties of mathematical concepts are unaltered by changes in name and symbology. This is the crux of the mathematical objectivist argument, but here's my counter-position. Let's take an apple falling at a particular velocity, doesn't matter what in particular, just that it is moving toward the earth at a particular speed. Now whatever number is ascribed to that speed, let's also say we have that many apples. So X apples moving toward earth at a speed of Xft/s. This illustrates a very fine point about the nature of mathematics, I can describe the speed at which an apple falls in the same terms by which I can describe the number of apples, two completely unrelated or at best only tangentially related facets can be described in the same terms. This is, as we all know, because numbers, and mathematics in general, is abstracted away from the physical universe. The same X that describes the speed at which an apple falls is not the X which describes the number of apples, or rather while they may share the same numerical property the number of apples is not the speed at which any individual apple falls, even though but the number of apples and the act of changing position as a function of time can both be objectively experienced and measured through the filter of mathematical understanding, the values themselves are merely abstract descriptions of real properties. This is the point I'm trying to drive home here, and it's a really complicated point so I will admit I may be looking at the matter from an inaccurate perspective, but an abstraction is, by it's very nature, not objectively real. It may be very well suited to the task of describing general properties of reality, and those general properties might be real, but the abstractions taken from those properties are not real. Now here's the thing, one might argue that numbers are not subjective, because the properties of numbers however abstract do not change depending on the person. That is to say one might argue that 1+1=5 is not true depending on the person, and I would agree with you, even if you change the name and symbol, as long as you are abstracting from the same properties you will arrive at the same conclusion, this is a core foundational principle of mathematics. That's why I brought up the point of faces earlier. We may see a pattern of shapes that taken together we can generally recognise as a face. In fact so powerful is this ability to abstract from a pattern of features in order to recognise a face that we can recognise faces in things that don't have faces. We talk about the face of the Mona Lisa, which is just paint on a canvas. We can see faces in stuffed animals, plastic toys, butterfly wings, pieces of toast, etc... Yet there is a piece of the brain which, when damaged precludes the ability to perceive faces. People suffering from this effect cannot see faces in paint, fruit, toast, nor even flesh on a human skull. The brain once could recognise a pattern in objective reality and from those patterns abstract the concept of a face. After sustaining specific damage, even though the same objectively real facets of the universe (fruit, toast, etc...) Exist and still could, if perceived by a healthy human observer, represent a face, the ability is lost to the patient, and as such the concept itself is rendered meaningless noise. Such is the case with numerical abstractions. We and similarly constructed observers can perceive patterns in the fabric of objective reality which can be abstracted away to useful ends, but the pattern in reality is not objective proof of the abstraction. The object accelerating at 32ft/s/s is not expressing an objective property of 32ness, it is our brains which draw from the pattern of relationships between size and distance some abstract notion of units in feet which is further abstracted into pure mathematical representations as the notion of a single unit which can be cross-applied to any subject containing objects which can be treated as a unit. So yes, things in reality have patterns and properties which can be treated as numerical to quite a useful effect. In fact this kind of cross application through abstraction is such a useful mechanism that I would not be surprised if alien civilisations independently arrived at highly similar, if differently worded conclusions. Still, utility is not objectivity. Just because it is useful to describe a collection of a thing in numerical terms such as describing it by a property of two-ness does not mean that the useful abstract property exists objectively. I mean hopefully I've given a fairly persuasive argument of that at this point. The only object I would regard as entirely objective would be the whole of reality without regard to division or categorisation. Every other concept is just that, a concept, a pattern drawn from facets of reality with the intention of analysing reality in chunks in order to facilitate the process of intelligent understanding, but with every abstraction and with every subdivision you gain precision and weaken, even if by some infinitesimal measure, your tether to reality. Take for example the concept of a point, or the very nature of calculus. These are where we find the chinks in the armor of mathematical objectivity. There are concepts in mathematics which are useful but lose meaning and coherence when applied to reality. There are minute differences between states in reality of such an infinitesimal and or continuous nature that mathematics can only ever approximate their existence asymptotically, coming closer and closer in accuracy without ever truly mirroring it. The attempt to align mathematical observations with reality is like attempting to solve a seemingly infinitely complex rubix cube. You will maybe come frustratingly close after thousands of years only to discover that there are a handful of inaccuracies, and the solution may be to undo a lot of hard work and effort to begin with a fresh perspective, or you may be a few turns from completion in the current state. Mathematics as it is seems so very very close to accurately describing and predicting almost every conceivable event in reality, but it is important to remember that it is not an objective truth, because it may occasionally be useful to ask the question, what if the entirety of mathematics starts from faulty premises, could we do it better another way? If you fool yourself into thinking of mathematics as real then you preclude the possibility that it can be wrong and that there might be a better way, and you get stuck on a conceptual plateau where what you have may never be able to sufficiently answer certain questions because as good as it is, it isn't the best.

I think a lot of mathematicians would agree with you, but I would disagree. Let's take the concept of a face for instance, faces do definitely exist in the universe right? Yet if the right part of the brain is destroyed you'll still be able to see all of the same parts, eyes, nose, chin, etc... yet you would not be able to comprehend it is a face, even if it is a face you've seen on numerous occasions. A face, as it turns out, is all in how you interpret what you're looking at. You can staunchly declare that faces exist, certainly all of the cells and component features are there, but the face only exists because you interpret an otherwise meaningless collection of features as a face. I suspect it is the same with math. You could argue that numbers are real because when test your suspicions by having one apple and adding another to get two apples, but if the part of your brain responsible for your inate number sense is damaged, as it is for some unfortunate individuals, then suddenly the "two" apples are just apples, no notion of the count. So I feel comfortable in saying that while mathematics seems real enough upon initial examination, and could be considered real from a certain point of view, it is in fact not an abstract truth within the objective universe, but an interpretation of some parts of the universe. Most healthy brains have a number sense because numbers and the related sciences are pretty useful on balance, but just because it feels real doesn't make it so.

I suppose that's a pretty fair critique, I haven't addressed the matter computationally yet because I find this manner of expository abstract postulation to be both a more relaxed and more deeply personal way to exchange ideas, though I suppose it would be daft to act as if such a view would extend to others. Also I'm sorry if it seemed as though I was posturing as any kind of expert in the matter, I don't demand to be taken seriously on the matter or to have my ideas discussed exclusively, I would just like to see more discussion on the general topic. I do intend to discuss the topic more computationally once I've stumbled into a more solid approach and really narrowed my design. At that point I think I would feel more comfortable discussing the approach I'm developing in terms of the other major approaches and the computational workload and specific implementations.

Well, there is some moral consideration here. If a man commits a crime, but his actions are decided deterministically, and we decide to punish that man, are we truly acting justly? Or are we simply attempting to remove a threat without regard for justice? If my sense of control over my destiny was actually an illusion of control, and especially if consciousness is emergent, then should we still hold any man, even the criminal, responsible for his actions? After all, he may literally not be able to respond. Imagine I could run a super computer with all of the relevant factors including those currently unknown by science, assuming that the universe is deterministic, and get the results of every action or event that will take place from now until the end of time. I see in the report that Bob is fated to murder 10 people but I can't intervene for the sake of argument. Afterward however I can choose to put him in jail, put him in psychotherapy, or do nothing. If I do nothing he will go free and might surely kill again, so if I value the lives of other humans I cannot in good conscience do nothing. If I send him to jail he will suffer for his crimes and remain in prison until death, never finding peace, redemption, or reform. If I send him to psychotherapy, for the sake of argument it's really amazing psychotherapy, he will be very unlikely to kill again but he will not suffer and will eventually be released having found peace of mind despite having brutally murdered 10 people. Should I reason that this man has done something terrible and thus deserves to suffer, thereby choosing to put him in jail? Or should I reason that he was not the author of his fate, and a slave of destiny cannot be made to suffer for crimes he was forced to commit by fate, thereby placing him in super good, pleasant, enjoyable psychotherapy? It's not a question I feel I could even find an answer to really, assuming I was really deeply disturbed by the deaths of those 10 hypothetical people. Does not being able to not commit a heinous crime without remorse make one deserving of terrible vengeance and suffering? Framed another way, is the ability to choose to not commit a heinous crime a requirement of retribution? We seek vengeance from a place of hurt and anger, but can you really be mad if a man carries out the will of fate? Could you seek vengeance on a computer if it was programmed to kill the people you loved? Yes, obviously, but should you be? I think part of the anger comes from an idea that it could have all been avoided, but if we live in a truly deterministic world then bad fates cannot be avoided, and I would argue for sympathy and understanding for even the most vile of creatures. Now I suppose it seems silly to talk about, because it's easy to say that if we live in a truly deterministic world then I don't have a choice either, but while it may be true it doesn't matter when you're coming from a position of ignorance. If my fate is predestined then I will always have chosen to do whatever I did given the same inputs, however if I'm unaware of what that will be then each thing that I think could be a factor which determines what the outcome will have always been destined to one day be. If knowledge is the input, and my response to that knowledge is predetermined, but I can't know how I will ultimately process that knowledge until I am finished doing it, if I carry an attitude that I am not in control of myself nor my actions, while that may be true, the thought itself while not truly under my control may negatively affect the ultimate outcome despite the fact that if that is the way I end up think I won't ever have truly been able to choose not to think that way. Likewise if I think with an attitude that I am responsible for the way that I think, while I may not really be able to hold myself responsible the added weight that lends to my ultimate decision may force me to think more critically leading to an increased likelihood of favourable outcome even though once it has occurred I will know that I was never able to not think that way. So basically I have no true control over what I think and yet paradoxically the way I think matters. Put another way it's OK to realise that there's not really a me and to the extent that there is I'm not truly in control of what I do, but the way that I think and the actions I take still matter, and should still be given due consideration even though if I don't give them consideration I will never have had the option to do so in the first place.

If I can get away with unethical experiments, have no moral compass, and advance my knowledge and understanding of the world, why should I bother with ethical considerations? Furthermore if I proceed and discover new and relevant information are other researchers ethically obliged not to use the knowledge I've obtained unethically? For instance if a bunch of people were tortured and killed in a basement while testing the effects of a drug that could cure cancer and other diseases, is the medical community ethically obligated not to read my findings after my arrest so as to not symbolically condone unethical behaviour? Also this is on a highly irrelevant, almost completely tangential side not but how many bodies do you have to have before it counts as "murder"?

And if so many processes all play a role in one's mental state that would suggest to me that consciousnesses is not a specific process but may very well be an emergent one. The emotional feedback, the senses with the seemingly irrelevant filtered out, etc... Such that focused attention on various nearly simultaneous or fully simultaneous processes creates an illusion of unified consciousness distinct from the filtered background noise.

I don't know, I'm not even sure how it's relevant really, I'm not sure why we're still talking about it. Were my ideas so far so stupid that nobody even wants to bother? Pointing out one comment I made about number deconstruction is the only interesting or worthwhile thing to discuss on a thread about AI. You're not going to school me and point out a theorem discovered decades ago that makes my ideas irrelevant or intractable? I mean I don't mind being called out on being ignorant so we can discuss a more relevant approach but is artificial intelligence really so passé you'd rather talk about a non-foundational comment I made concerning numbers, not even a laughably false statement showcasing the extent of my ignorance but an unimportant statement I made in passing while discussing my thoughts on the designs of a program with the purpose of creating more accurate models of the world and using those models as a framework for creating intelligent response to users in order to pass tests of intelligence. Are you sure you wouldn't rather talk about that? Right or wrong it at least seems more interesting.

I prefer to think of the self as a collection of information that the brain has on the person we think ourselves to be, like a container of self knowledge in a fashion similar to a struct or class in some object oriented programming languages. I can imagine the brain accessing the regions storing the data on the self in order to make decisions. I would contrast this with the experience of being the observer which I would think is more closely tied in with some orientation process. You think of your sense of seeing through your eyes because that's how your brain recognises what is being seen as occurring in front of your face and possibly having consequences for your body, thus orienting oneself to the world. Anyway it's only a suggested model based on pure conjecture born of my limited work with computers, but that would make sense to me, a storehouse of self knowledge and a filter for sensations which overlap to create an illusion of self, a constructed idea of me combined with an experience of the world and my physical place in it.