tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3431950130623809007..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What is Reductionism?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger234125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87016114137465970692020-07-18T11:13:17.569-04:002020-07-18T11:13:17.569-04:00I'd be more inclined to say that reductionism ...I'd be more inclined to say that reductionism has been a fruitful approach, and that it is - on top of its explanatory successes - an aesthetically pleasing idea. It has been virtually impossible to test it though, in the sense of predicting things of any great complexity from fundamental physics. A framework which doesn't require reductionism, but which creates a nice framework in which Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03594029157743565867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13010360863706299722020-05-19T07:32:15.244-04:002020-05-19T07:32:15.244-04:00PhysicistDave4:21 AM, May 13, 2020
"My best ...PhysicistDave4:21 AM, May 13, 2020<br /><br />"My best guess is that consciousness is like the flame of a candle. "<br />But there's no evidence for this and it's largely meaningless. All the evidence currently available suggests the process is purely physical.<br /><br />"No one knows. "<br />No-one knows the details.<br /><br />"No, that is not "empiricallySteven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78663890775164846762020-05-17T16:08:56.064-04:002020-05-17T16:08:56.064-04:00Lorraine,
What I believe about computers and elect...Lorraine,<br />What I believe about computers and electronics is not what you ascribe to me.<br /><br />However, I really do not want to continue to go back and forth at this time. For the foreseeable future my attention is focused elsewhere.Steve Bullfoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990244011256349875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50882494776814275912020-05-16T19:17:14.500-04:002020-05-16T19:17:14.500-04:00Steve Bullfox,
There is no real sparring or debat...Steve Bullfox,<br /><br />There is no real sparring or debate on this issue. There is just someone who has designed computer circuits (Dave) and someone who has programmed the computers (me) trying to explain how computers work to people (you and JimV) who seem to have cultish religious beliefs in miraculous emergences from electrical voltages, based on the very superficial appearances of Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45076641999705811412020-05-16T10:31:25.665-04:002020-05-16T10:31:25.665-04:00Dr. Miller:
"My point was that one single ci...Dr. Miller:<br /><br />"My point was that one single circuit could be considered as being two radically different logic functions depending on whether you view at as positive logic or negative logic."<br /><br />In response to:<br /><br />"...There are many different ways of saying "rabbit" in different languages, and in fact the same sound may mean different things to JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11405830813856206462020-05-16T05:46:59.677-04:002020-05-16T05:46:59.677-04:00Steve Bullfox wrote to me:
>But seriously, I am...Steve Bullfox wrote to me:<br />>But seriously, I am trying to devote less time to Backreaction and more time to political activism, especially promoting more science in public policy,<br /><br />Well, Steve, based on your performance here, I certainly hope you fail dismally in introducing <i>your</i> idea of "science" into political life: what you call "science" is rather PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33239011893733493732020-05-15T23:55:35.276-04:002020-05-15T23:55:35.276-04:00Dave,
In my working life I had a lot of nasty name...Dave,<br />In my working life I had a lot of nasty names shouted in my ear, but I have to admit Fundamental Christian is a novelty. I asked my wife for an appropriate Bible verse because before we got married she was a Fundamental Christian. Now she is a flaming liberal and reads Richard Dawkins. Its been a good marriage. Anyway, she recommended Ephesians 4:13.<br /><br />But seriously, I am Steve Bullfoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990244011256349875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8783956944203906902020-05-15T19:12:04.893-04:002020-05-15T19:12:04.893-04:00Lorraine Ford 6:43 PM, May 14, 2020 continued:
So...Lorraine Ford 6:43 PM, May 14, 2020 continued:<br /><br />So what happens when you reduce a world where almost every number has a category (e.g. voltage, current, relative position, mass, energy) and where every category exists as part of a lawful relationship, to a world of numbers (binary digits) without categories [1] ? What happens is that you lose almost everything that makes the world (Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59248795851862094892020-05-15T04:35:40.956-04:002020-05-15T04:35:40.956-04:00Steve Bullfox wrote to me:
>Not sure why you th...Steve Bullfox wrote to me:<br />>Not sure why you think doorbells and buzzers being like transistors and neurons even matters, but at least we agree that they all function as input output devices.<br /><br />No, Steve, we really don't. Part of what I am trying to get across to you is that you are assuming things about the physical world that just are not true and also assuming that other PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5488260132834780352020-05-14T18:43:20.083-04:002020-05-14T18:43:20.083-04:00Steve Bullfox and JimV,
In the real world, there ...Steve Bullfox and JimV,<br /><br />In the real world, there are law of nature relationships between <i>individual categories</i> like voltage, current, mass and energy. But there are no law of nature relationships between <i>individual numbers</i>: binary digits (i.e. high and low voltages) are numbers. So when you represent the real world with binary digits (numbers), you lose the lawful Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85836400071403290742020-05-14T14:27:07.975-04:002020-05-14T14:27:07.975-04:00Lorraine,
I think you have some interesting ideas,...Lorraine,<br />I think you have some interesting ideas, but I don't want to further comment on them. Lately I find myself spending more of my time, energy, and activities on U.S. politics. So my limited energy is focused more on the few things I can do to aid positive change in that area. Sorry for bowing out.Steve Bullfoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990244011256349875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16082626398192938002020-05-13T22:43:41.773-04:002020-05-13T22:43:41.773-04:00Steve Bullfox,
Computers merely implement human i...Steve Bullfox,<br /><br />Computers merely implement human ideas, and utilise human knowledge of materials, e.g. transistors, which have suitable properties to represent logical steps and the binary digit concept. Human beings symbolically represent logical steps when they write a computer program; these logical steps are symbolically implemented via various circuit hardwares designed by human Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55927537213418993792020-05-13T14:07:15.739-04:002020-05-13T14:07:15.739-04:00Dave,
Not sure why you think doorbells and buzzer...Dave,<br /><br />Not sure why you think doorbells and buzzers being like transistors and neurons even matters, but at least we agree that they all function as input output devices.<br /><br />Be that as it may, a far more interesting question is how would you even know if a computer is conscious? I suppose with technological advances that might become a broadly important question in society, andSteve Bullfoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990244011256349875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7612302616101823272020-05-13T04:21:19.254-04:002020-05-13T04:21:19.254-04:00Steven Evans wrote to me:
>You seem to be claim...Steven Evans wrote to me:<br />>You seem to be claiming that current empirical evidence leaves open the possibility of some other component of conscious experience aside from the physical brain.<br /><br />Well, duh. Yes, <i>of course</i> it does leave open that possibility!<br /><br />You want my honest best guess? Yes, I think that is what is happening.<br /><br />My best guess is that PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42498889782020392562020-05-13T01:36:46.078-04:002020-05-13T01:36:46.078-04:00Steve Bullfox wrote to me:
>Neurons and transis...Steve Bullfox wrote to me:<br />>Neurons and transistors both receive some input, and create an output. <br /><br />So does a doorbell (input -- push the button; output -- BUZZZ) and, for that matter, a zipper.<br /><br />A transistor is much more similar to a doorbell than to a neuron.<br /><br />Steve also wrote:<br />> I am probably thinking from more of engineering perspective than you PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-92122572778081076192020-05-13T00:32:59.478-04:002020-05-13T00:32:59.478-04:00Lorraine Ford6:26 PM, May 12, 2020
"given th...Lorraine Ford6:26 PM, May 12, 2020<br /><br />"given the raw material information coming from the eyes and ears, and given that the result is categorised information (danger, tiger, striped, bird, flying, food, apple), you can’t get from representations of the raw material information to representations of these categories of information using equations:"<br />Yes, you can. A physical Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76174993460094876652020-05-12T18:26:15.815-04:002020-05-12T18:26:15.815-04:00Steven,
I think what I actually said was that giv...Steven,<br /><br />I think what I actually said was that given the raw material information coming from the eyes and ears, and given that the result is categorised information (danger, tiger, striped, bird, flying, food, apple), you can’t get from representations of the raw material information to representations of these categories of information using equations: you need to use IF, THEN, ELSE,Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32967455920014402102020-05-12T17:38:09.052-04:002020-05-12T17:38:09.052-04:00Dave,
Neurons and transistors both receive some in...Dave,<br />Neurons and transistors both receive some input, and create an output. You are thinking of a different meaning of function than I am. For example an electric motor and a gasoline engine function or operate by different means, but their function is the same, they produce motion. I am probably thinking from more of engineering perspective than you are.<br /><br />One other thing, Steve Bullfoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990244011256349875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76879334736514806592020-05-12T04:04:55.136-04:002020-05-12T04:04:55.136-04:00JimV wrote:
>I wondered where Dr. Miller was go...JimV wrote:<br />>I wondered where Dr. Miller was going with the negative logic. He seems to believe it proves computers can never think. (If so, there are several steps missing in the proof.) To me it simply proves there is often more than one way of accomplishing the same thing (which I already knew from other examples; that is an interesting new one, however).<br /><br />No, you <i>PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11147087921490754282020-05-12T03:19:51.924-04:002020-05-12T03:19:51.924-04:00Steve Bullfox wrote to Lorraine Ford and me:
>T...Steve Bullfox wrote to Lorraine Ford and me:<br />>The answer to the question as I see is that the functional way in which neurons and transistors are similar in brains and computers is that they both take an activating electrical potential and fire, or not, passing along, or not, the potential to other similar devices in their network.<br /><br />That is not how neurons work, Steve, at all. PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13693435565058354732020-05-12T01:00:51.110-04:002020-05-12T01:00:51.110-04:00PhysicistDave4:49 AM, May 10, 2020 Lorraine Ford1...PhysicistDave4:49 AM, May 10, 2020 Lorraine Ford10:11 PM, May 10, 2020<br /><br />"So... now that we know that you are wrong, what do we know about consciousness?<br />Do we know that consciousness can survive death? Nope.<br />Do we know that a disembodied consciousness can exist? Nope.<br />Do we know that a computer can be conscious? Nope.<br /><br />Indeed, on empirical grounds all of Steven Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13898046706669437332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13529328611015458662020-05-11T23:20:05.063-04:002020-05-11T23:20:05.063-04:00JimV,
From the “point of view” of a computer (not...JimV,<br /><br />From the “point of view” of a computer (not that a computer actually has a point of view) there is nothing happening but higher and lower voltages. A computer can’t know, and can’t deduce, that the high and low voltages (or the low and high voltages) are meant to symbolically represent zeroes and ones, because a computer has no brain. The computer can’t even know what zeroes and Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21574903564275031632020-05-11T15:21:44.894-04:002020-05-11T15:21:44.894-04:00Lorraine and Dave,
The answer to the question as I...Lorraine and Dave,<br />The answer to the question as I see is that the functional way in which neurons and transistors are similar in brains and computers is that they both take an activating electrical potential and fire, or not, passing along, or not, the potential to other similar devices in their network. But neither of you saw that as the basic way they function, nor offered a functional Steve Bullfoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990244011256349875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70398549428255275662020-05-11T10:06:10.553-04:002020-05-11T10:06:10.553-04:00I wondered where Dr. Miller was going with the neg...I wondered where Dr. Miller was going with the negative logic. He seems to believe it proves computers can never think. (If so, there are several steps missing in the proof.) To me it simply proves there is often more than one way of accomplishing the same thing (which I already knew from other examples; that is an interesting new one, however). There are many different ways of saying "JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51262100509506332362020-05-11T04:30:27.007-04:002020-05-11T04:30:27.007-04:00Steve Bullfox,
Neurons are living things: they ne...Steve Bullfox,<br /><br />Neurons are living things: they need nutrients; they live and die. Why don't you look up "neuron" and see if you think a transistor can do what a neuron does? Lorraine Fordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175567853773691970noreply@blogger.com