ydoaPs

No, you don't.

But the structures in the brain are classical objects. What does QM have to do with it?

Yet you can accept that a purely chemical one can?

That's what I was thinking: it'd be incredibly slow like the Chinese Room. And, since it's a mechanical device, it would be more prone to failure.

They are? I'd like to discuss this some, but it would take this thread off topic. Care to make a new one?

Oops, I meant areN'T. The cookies are a lie.

Surely it would at least give you a more intuitive understanding of how Linux OSes work, though.

Eventually, I think I want to work through programming my own OS Has anyone here done this?

Emotions are necessary for intelligence. Now that you know that, keep trying First one to make skynet gets to survive Judgment Day!

That was actually part of the reason I chose Python.

I've recently spent a lot of time thinking about consciousness and how to give it to machines. Learning a program language or two seemed like a logical step.

So, I just made my first program that actually does something. Input a number and it tells you if you guessed correctly and whether you need to guess higher or lower if you did not. Sure it's simple, but I just started learning today(I went underway the day after making this thread). #!/usr/bin/python #Filename: if.py number = 42 guess = int(input('Enter an integer : ')) if guess == number: print('Congratulations, you guessed it.') print('(but you do not win any prizes!)') elif guess < number: print('No, it\'s a little higher than that') else: print('No, it\'s a little lower than that') I'm working through A Byte of Python and this code came from there(and before you ask, the creative commons license allows posting any portion of the text as long as you properly attribute it). The pdf is available for free online, or you can buy a paper copy. edit: if you're following along as well, you may notice I changed the program a little bit. This is also allowed by the license. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI started playing with the code and came up with my own take on it. This one keeps running until you guess correctly. #!/usr/bin/python #Filename: if.py number = 42 running = True while running: guess = int(input('What number am I thinking of? ')) if guess == number: print('Damn, you got me!') running = False #causes loop to stop elif guess < number: print('Nope, it\'s a bit lower than that.') #tricks user else: print('Nope, it\'s a bit higher than that.') #tricks user

Relativity says you're wrong about simultaneity.

From the video, it looks like an analog to lewis structures rather than chemical formulas.

Thanks.

On some level, I think does. But, that's off topic.

I was under the impression that the Milky Way was actually a part of the Virgo Supercluster.

It wouldn't actually be that bad. Our standards for education, at least in my part of the world, are ridiculously low. 10 or 11 years of school before calculus is taught? That's outrageous.

[13:27] <mib_4q9dhe> so you yall believe in free will or not [13:27] <mib_4q9dhe> do you all* [13:28] <ydoaPs> that depends on what you mean by free will [13:28] <ydoaPs> [13:28] <mib_4q9dhe> so whats your answer [13:28] <ydoaPs> sure [13:28] <ydoaPs> how 'bout you? [13:28] <mib_4q9dhe> yeah [13:29] <mib_4q9dhe> but you only believe in one time dimension [13:29] <ydoaPs> o.O [13:29] <ydoaPs> explain? [13:30] <mib_4q9dhe> if you have free will you have a choice to choose between to possible outcomes [13:30] <mib_4q9dhe> but if time is a line then there will only be one possible outcome [13:30] <mib_4q9dhe> so you dont actually have free will [13:32] <mib_4q9dhe> i think will consciousness we have the ability to choose between our possible futures [13:33] <mib_4q9dhe> with* [13:35] <mib_4q9dhe> thats what probability is [13:35] <mib_4q9dhe> the wave function of time [13:36] <ydoaPs> complete determinism does not negate free will [13:37] <ydoaPs> in fact, free will is dependent upon determinism [13:38] <mib_4q9dhe> how so [13:38] <ydoaPs> give me a sec [13:38] <ydoaPs> it's a bit of explanation [13:40] <mib_4q9dhe> complete determinism would mean that every action you take could be determined before you actually decided to make to decision [13:40] <ydoaPs> our minds are analogous to computer programming. we can look at computer programming from various levels. you can look it it from the low level of electrons moving about on wires. in the same manner, you can look at the brain as ion currents through neurons. at a higher level, you have logic gates in computers and neural hierarchies in the brain. then you have higher level programming like python. the analog in the brain is an idea. [13:41] <ydoaPs> our actions, our choices, are all based upon our beliefs, our values, preconcieved notions, etc. it's algorithmic(albeit VERY complicated) [13:42] <ydoaPs> all of these things come at the lowest level from deterministic physics(the brain is a classical system) [13:42] <mib_4q9dhe> but if you knew the algorithm you could predict every action a person would ever take [13:42] <ydoaPs> mib_4q9dhe, if, under the exact same circumstances, you make a different decision one time than another, what's to say it is you doing it? [13:43] <ydoaPs> how does randomness fix anything? [13:43] <ydoaPs> randomness is the problem [13:43] <ydoaPs> there IS a pattern, and you use this information every day. if you didn't, you'd be utterly suprised by everyone's actions all the time [13:45] <ydoaPs> for "you" to make a choice, there has to be a "you". for your "you" to be distinct from my "me", it can't be random. it has to have distinct properties [13:45] <ydoaPs> follow? [13:45] <mib_4q9dhe> yeah but everything your saying seems to qualify that we dont have free will [13:47] <ydoaPs> what do you mean by free will? [13:48] <ydoaPs> the ability for "you" to choose between multiple outcomes? if so, then it does not [13:48] <mib_4q9dhe> the ability to not be bound by any algorithm [13:48] <ydoaPs> so, your free will means complete randomness [13:48] <mib_4q9dhe> yup basically [13:49] <ydoaPs> see, most people don't even have an ill-defined notion of free will. they just don't think about it. it's just something they say they have. yours doesn't even fit with most of them [13:49] * UnintentionalChaos has quit (Ping timeout) [13:49] <mib_4q9dhe> yeah ive thought about it alot [13:50] <ydoaPs> are you familiar with Daniel Dennett? [13:50] <mib_4q9dhe> nope [13:50] <ydoaPs> a good book by him is Freedom Evolves [13:51] <mib_4q9dhe> ill check it out [13:51] <ydoaPs> he's an american scientific philosopher [13:51] <mib_4q9dhe> so then are we really conscious? [13:52] <ydoaPs> again, that depends on what you mean by conscious [13:53] <ydoaPs> are we self-aware? obviously, yes [13:53] <mib_4q9dhe> well a rock is not conscious do you agree [13:53] <ydoaPs> indeed [13:53] <mib_4q9dhe> is your leg conscious [13:54] <ydoaPs> consciousness is what it "feels like" to have a functioning neocortex or analogous structure [13:54] <ydoaPs> you should read On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins too....he's the guy that invented the Palm Pilot and the Treo Smartphone [13:55] <mib_4q9dhe> so then the ability to change is consciousness [13:55] <ydoaPs> no [13:56] * Capn_Refsmmat (capnrefsmm@cloak-49E3759B.satx.res.rr.com) has joined #sfn [13:56] * ChanServ sets mode +a #sfn Capn_Refsmmat [13:56] * ChanServ gives channel operator status to Capn_Refsmmat [13:57] <ydoaPs> the neocortex is a thin covering of the "old brain" which is densely packed neurons organized heiarically. it is basically a pattern-finding/comparing machine [13:57] <ydoaPs> most of what you experience is not what you actually see/hear/ect, but rather, what you expect to see/hear/etc [13:57] <mib_4q9dhe> so if you take the neocortex out of someone are they still conscious [13:57] <ydoaPs> no [13:58] <mib_4q9dhe> why not [13:58] <ydoaPs> their model of the world is gone [13:58] <mib_4q9dhe> if you make sure that all the cell that make it up are still living [13:58] <Capn_Refsmmat> you mean take the neocortex out but keep it alive? [13:58] <mib_4q9dhe> yup [13:58] <ydoaPs> oh, i was thinking you meant remove it and discard it [13:58] <mib_4q9dhe> oh no [13:59] <ydoaPs> mib_4q9dhe, maybe....it would be completely dependant upon imagination [13:59] <ydoaPs> which, oddly enough, is EXACTLY THE SAME as actual experience in the neocortex! [14:00] <mib_4q9dhe> really [14:00] <ydoaPs> very interesting stuff, imo [14:00] <ydoaPs> like i said, On Intelligence [14:00] <ydoaPs> you'll learn all kinds of stuff [14:01] <mib_4q9dhe> ill check it out next time im at the library [14:01] <mib_4q9dhe> i dont like using the internet [14:01] <mib_4q9dhe> or learning from the internet rather [14:01] <ydoaPs> lol.....then why are you here? [14:01] <ydoaPs> [14:02] <mib_4q9dhe> well i assume at a website dedicated to the sciences might be a bit more creditable then wikipedia [14:03] <mib_4q9dhe> how do you describe quantum superposition without free will [14:03] <mib_4q9dhe> or randomness [14:05] <ydoaPs> brain structures aren't on the quantum level. they're classical structures [14:05] <mib_4q9dhe> not true [14:05] <ydoaPs> it's quite true, actually [14:05] <mib_4q9dhe> brains function by sending and receiving electrical signals so they have to work at the quantum level [14:06] <mib_4q9dhe> to some extent [14:06] <Capn_Refsmmat> well, but it's mostly chemical interactions [14:06] <ydoaPs> "electrical signals" means ion exchanges [14:06] <Capn_Refsmmat> nothing down on the crazy atomic level [14:06] <ydoaPs> mib_4q9dhe, what Capn_Refsmmat said [14:06] <mib_4q9dhe> what about photosynthesis [14:07] <Capn_Refsmmat> what about it? [14:07] <mib_4q9dhe> its a classical structure that has recently been found to function at the quantum level [14:07] <Capn_Refsmmat> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation [14:07] <Capn_Refsmmat> aha. [14:07] <Capn_Refsmmat> Well, you never know. Maybe some structures in the brain are somewhat quantum [14:07] <Capn_Refsmmat> But why should that undermine free will? [14:09] <mib_4q9dhe> because quantum events are never 100% gauranteed [14:09] <ydoaPs> mib_4q9dhe, if we were to encode information using spin(essentially quantum computing), would that make the computer any less deterministic? [14:09] <Capn_Refsmmat> Here's my take on the free will questionS [14:09] <ydoaPs> would our programs no longer work? What's your take?

Speed is meaningless without a reference. As swansont once said, asking the speed of an object without specifying a reference is like asking the difference between a duck.

Imagine a universe in which all that exists are three balls(one red, one blue, and one yellow). Each ball has a mass of 1kg. The red and blue balls are at rest with respect to each other, but are moving with respect to the yellow ball. From a reference frame in which the yellow ball is at rest, the red ball and the blue ball are moving and thus have kinetic energy. Now, let's move our reference frame to one in which the blue ball is at rest. The red ball at rest relative to the blue ball, so has no kinetic energy(and neither does the blue ball). The yellow ball, however, is moving and thus has kinetic energy. The red ball has more energy in the reference frame of the yellow ball than it does in the reference frame of the blue ball. Thus energy is dependent on the reference frame and is not conserved from frame to frame. Mass, however is the same in every frame of reference. If we consider the three balls as a system and use the same reference frames, we get different values for the total energy of the system. As stated, each ball has a mass of 1kg. In the reference frame where the red and blue balls are at rest, the yellow ball is observed to be moving at 100m/s with respect to the red and blue balls. In the reference frame where the yellow ball is at rest, the red and blue balls are each observed to be traveling at 100m/s with respect to the yellow ball. How much KE does this universe have? While energy is conserved in a frame of reference, it is not invariant between reference frames.

They do, eventually. The photons, however take up a far greater percentage of the electron's energy than the gravity waves do of the planets. We've seen accelerating charges radiate.

In that case, you should be in favor of ydoaPsium.

Swansont is correct; electrons do not orbit the nucleus. If they did, they would be accelerating and thus would be giving off photons. The energy must be conserved, so as the photons are emitted, the electrons would lose energy. So, as you can probably see, if electrons orbited the nucleus, then they WOULD crash into it!

You could get a job on one of those shows on Scifi, Discovery, or History channels.