bunburryist

This business about collapsing wave fuctions arises from a mistaken understanding of what a wave fuction is. A wave fuction isn't something that exists in a universe and propagates through space, only to "collapse" at some time and place. Rather, it is a mathematical construct we use to interpret experimental results. No one ever "discovered" a wave fuction to actually exist.

If you're interested in perfect pitch, take a look at this post with many responses at Piano Forums - http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/13976.html

Does anyone know anything about Galileo's beliefs about vision (the mechanics of how we see)? Are there any books or on-line papers that address this subject? I'm particularly interested in his beliefs regarding the relationship between vision and the brain, his beliefs about the relationship between color and light, etc.

Psynapse - Rather than thinking strictly materialist terms of what "it" does (or that it "does" anything in the conventional materialist sense), try thinking rather in terms of looking for a relationship between our experience as a whole, the aspects of our experience we call brains, and the reality underlying it all. I can't help but think there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we think of our experience that leads to the problems in physics and neurology. Perhaps the way out will be for physicists and neurologists to break out of their habitual ways of thinking about our experience. This doesn't require us to get all metaphysical or to resort to spiritualism, etc. It's a simple matter of thinking, "Gee, maybe reality isn't the way we have learned to think it is." How many times in the past have scientists had to accept that reality simply wasn't how their teachers and parents "knew" it was. Rob

What blows my mind is when you think about how we recognize things like music, movies, locations, etc. In order for you to recognize something you need to have it memorized in some way. Think of all the songs you "have in your head." Think of how much "memory" a conductor would need for one stinking symphony! He knows all the parts, the nuances associated with each, etc. When you listen to a song and can anticipate all the various parts - rhytmic, melodic, lyric, etc. - it's amazing. Now add to that all the Seinfeld episodes you recognize, locations you recognize with only a glimpse, etc. and it goes way, way off the chart. (Notice that those dealing with memory on a neurological basis never bring up these massive memory experiences, but are content to think in terms of "bits" of memory "datum.") We have no ideas what a memory really is, or even how to define it, or how one (much less gazzilions) can be "stored" in "the brain." I think it's healthy to remind ourselves that no one ever "discovered" that we "think with our brains," or that memories are "stored" in "the brain." We simply believe it because, as a result of our present materialist worldview, we can think of no alternative. Those who believe that memories are "stored in the brain" typically do so because it fits their worldview, not because it has a scientific basis. Is there a relationship between the brains that are aspects of our experiences and those experiences as a whole? Sure - but that's no proof of a materialist worldview. The more commited one is to materialist explanations, the more likely one is to have a background that leans one toward that view. I have found that most A.I. enthusiats are computer people who stumbled into neurology - not the other way around. This isn't unlike creationists. They are Christians who became confronted with problem of the origin of life - it wasn't their primary interest. Many people researching the brain are in a similar position -and I don't mean this as an insult. Simply that they come to the brain with previous worldview baggage. As for the "large collection of interlinking neurons" . . . (From my response to the "Number of connections in the brain" post 10-29-2005, 12:49 PM ) The number of connections in the brain are very, very few and mostly limited to the Cerebellum. These legitimate connections are called "gap junctions." I get so tired of people - knowledgable people - going on and on about "connections" in the brain. Although the word "synapse" comes from the Greek word meaning connect, synapses are not connections. The synaptic cleft is a space between neurons. Neurochemicals floating around between neurons does not "connect them." Except in the case of gap juntions, impulses do not propagate from one neuron to another. An impulse propagates to an axonal synapse(s), then chemicals float their merry way across the synaptic cleft. The fact that his happens rather quickly does not do away with the fact that they are not connected. At any given time, the vast, vast majority of your neurons (the exceptions being gap juntions) are DISconnected. Why does this definitional point matter? Because the biggest problem- the "dirty laundry" - in neurology is how to reconcile billions of SEPARATE neurons with a self-evidently holisitic experience. You will notice that neurology types don't spend much time discussing this problem - they don't even think about it because they believe, implicitly, that you have billions of connections in your brain. Look how far down you had to read in these responses before the problem was brought up. Rob

The number of connections in the brain are very, very few and mostly limited to the Cerebellum. These legitimate connections are called "gap junctions." I get so tired of people - knowledgable people - going on and on about "connections" in the brain. Although the word "synapse" comes from the Greek word meaning connect, synapses are not connections. The synaptic cleft is a space between neurons. Neurochemicals floating around between neurons does not "connect them." Except in the case of gap juntions, impulses do not propagate from one neuron to another. An impulse propagates to an axonal synapse(s), then chemicals float their merry way across the synaptic cleft. The fact that his happens rather quickly does not do away with the fact that they are not connected. At any given time, the vast, vast majority of your neurons (the exceptions being gap juntions) are DISconnected. Why does this definitional point matter? Because the biggest problem- the "dirty laundry" - in neurology is how to reconcile billions of SEPARATE neurons with a self-evidently holisitic experience. You will notice that neurology types don't spend much time discussing this problem - they don't even think about it because they believe, implicitly, that you have billions of connections in your brain. Look how far down you had to read in these responses before the problem was brought up. Rob

Tomgwyther - Although it is often confused with it, the Doppler shift has nothing to do with special relativity. Relativistic effects come from observers making measurements in different frames of reference. The cop siren anaology is irrelevant. Here is one of the easiest ways to understand relativity of simultaneity. Imagine a train box car with a light emitter in the center of it. In the cars frame of reference, if the light flashes, the beams will reach both ends at the same time. Now imagine that you are on the ground as the train passes to your right near the speed of light. After the light flashes, and as the light is traveling toward the ends of the train, the train will move to the right from the origin of the light. The result is that the rear of the train is moving toward the light source, while the front of the train is moving away. Since light propagates in both directions at the same rate, it will reach the rear of the train first. The question, then, is - are the events simultaneus? Well, in the trains frame of reference, they are. In your frame of reference, they aren't. Clocks are the same way. Two clocks at the ends of the train (which are syncronized) will always read the same time in the trains frame of reference. However, in your frame the clock at the back will always be somewhat ahead of the clock in the front. The reason the train appears shorter in your frame is that, for what is for you simultaneous observations of the front and back of the train, you will see the back of the train further in the future than the front. I think one of the problems here - and this is often a problem in trying to understand relativitistic ideas - are the words we use. Strictly speaking, you don't see the same train that exists in the trains frame of reference. Imagine that there are very fast carpenters working on the train as it passes, and that they are nailing boards onto the front and the back at the same rate in the trains frame of reference. Since (in what are for you simultaneous observations of the front and back of the train) you are seeing the back of the train further in the future than the back, there will always be more boards on the back than the front in your frame of reference. So do you see the same train? I would say, not really, in the sense that the train you see has more boards on the back than the front. So it's no such much that THE train is shorter in your frame of reference, but rather that THE train is manifest differently in different frames of reference as a result of our measurements. What are simultaneous events in the trains frame of reference are, for you, two distinct events at different times. Time dilation is a result of the same thing. Imagine a long row of clocks attached to the train (which are snchronized so that they always read the same time in the trains frame of reference). (Something to keep in mind here is that it's not just things that contract, but rather the whole frame of reference - space and all.) Remember how I said you see the back of the train car is FURTHER IN THE FUTURE than the front? Well, the same goes for the row of clocks. If you make two observations, one second apart, since the clocks behind are further in the future, in one second you will see a clock that reads some time in the future (less than a second behind the first observation) - hence you will conclude that time has slowed down for him. So you see, it's really an artifact of measurement! And since it is an artifact of measurement, if he observes clocks in your frame of reference, he will conclude that your time goes slower. You can see how semantics messes us up. Our language is implicitly in one frame of reference, so it becomes awkward for us to talk about relations between events in different frames of reference. This is why people so often resort to math - it makes it easy to talk about, but it does not translate in to conceptual thinking. I hope this helps. Rob

Paul - In think you have too much faith in relativity theory, string theory, etc. to be basing extra-cosmological worldviews on them. One of the frustrating aspects of the development of science is that ideas that are, at one time, taken by many to be descriptions of reality (a classic example is the ether theory of light), are tossed into the conceptual dust bin of history. A book that might help you focus your thinking in relation to what scientific theories are and what they mean, is called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. This should be required reading for anyone who has any interest in the meaning of scientific concepts an theories. Rob

First, it is inaccurate to say that things outside your spaceship slow down. You need to think in terms of frames of reference. Secondly, the effects of time dilation and length contraction are symetrical. They will see your time slow down as well. There seems to be a paradox, but there really isn't. In order to understand all this you need to understdand the concept of relativity of simutaneity - the idea that events that are simutaneous in one frame of reference happen at different times in another; that events that happen at one place in one frame of reference happen at two places in another. The best book I've found for explaining these ideas - in fact the only one I've found that has worked for me - is called Understanding Relativity, by Leo Sartori. I can't stress how important it is that you understand relativity of simultaneity. It might sound like just another abstract relativistic concept, but it is essential for understanding relativity. Do a google search for it as well, and I'm sure you'll find a lot online. Good luck - Rob

Your question implies a couple of assumptions – 1. That memories are “stored” in brains. 2. That whatever the nature of the reality underlying memory and mind, it can be measured. • If the scientific theory of the senses is correct, you cannot locate the brain your memories are supposed to be “stored” in. Since, according to that theory, every aspect of your world experience is something happening in a material brain, what you have learned to call “your body” is not your material body, but rather an aspect of a brain-generated experience. Therefor, your material brain is not in what you experience as your head. Therefor, you cannot locate the material brain in which your memories are supposed to be “stored.” If you, in your experience, believe your memory/mind is happening in what you experience as your head, you either do not understand, or do not believe in, the scientific theory of the senses. • No on ever discovered a memory stored in a brain. • People "know" that memories are "stored in the brain" for the same reason they used to "know" that light was the vibration of the ether – because the fashionable worldview will not permit any other possibility. • There is no legitimate theory of how memories could be stored in a brain. (Stylish computational speculation does not count for a legitimate theory.) • There is no way to define A memory, since it cannot be isolated from the overall experience of remembering. • Memory is typically discussed in terms of "data." Try to fit a musicians memory (melody, tempo, all the instruments parts, etc. - which is very holistic and spatial) of a whole symphony into any contemporary theory of memory. This whole “memory bit” business is just speculation. They get away with it because we are all used to this terminology and used to the belief in computational theories of mind. • We have no way to even conceive of how many “memories” (we should say “how much memory”) we have, much less measure or quantify them/it. Think of all the places you can recognize (from many perspectives), how many faces, how many songs, movies, tv shows, stories, ……. No matter how many neurons we have (and no, they don’t connect), we don’t know that there would be enough to “store” all of our memory. Since we don’t know how a memory REALLY would be stored in a brain (if it REALLY was), we shouldn’t use numbers of synapses as a measure of how many memories could be stored unless we are sure we are holding up big, fat speculation signs. It never seems to occur to many people that our simplistic, computer analogy brain-mind theory might simply be wrong. Not that there isn’t a relationship between the brains in our experience and our mind/experience/memory, but rather that the relationship between brains in our experience and our experience as a whole might be something we has you cannot conceive of. We really need to be more open minded with this. Another thought – you will find that many people who are into computational theories of memory/mind are mathematicians first, and wonderers of mind second. These computational theories of mind and memory are not unlike string theory, in that they are very abstract, usually incomprehensible to the non-believer (and hence lend themselves as good tools of intimidation of non-believers), and really have no concrete relationship to reality. Once again – I am not saying there is no relationship between brains in our experience and our experience as a whole – simply that we don’t know that it is the computational (or any other) version. The position I can't help but find myself taking is that there is a fundamental problem with the materialist worldview (I am not a spiritualist type, either) that is at the core of many of our problems - brain-mind, brain-memory, particle-wave, separate neuron-holistic experience, etc.