Are woo things really out of reach ?

[Aussie Thinker]

I was thinking what woo things will science (mankind) eventually be able to really do ?

1. Telekenisis : We can order our arms to move with a thought from our brain. This thought is a simple electronic signal. No reason this cannot be extended beyond our brain by the means of an attached interpreter/amplifier and used to move things remotely (the things would also have to have a receiver etc)
2. Telepathy : Ditto with the above. Machines that can interpret our brain signal can “send� them to another receiver.
3. Ghosts/Afterlife/Spirits : Technology will one day exist to allow us to live forever. Perhaps “mapping� all our brain signals and recreating them in a machine will recreate us ?
4. UFO’s etc.. I am sure one day man will cross interstellar space (even in a non-ftl way).
5. Future seeing : Nope I can’t see how we can ever have this one !
6. Past seeing : I can technically envisage ways for this to occur. In fact we already do… reruns…lol !
7. Miracle healing. Well todays healing methods would be a miracle just a few decades ago. In the future I cannot imagine anything man will not be able to heal.

Is the woo really out of our reach ?

[deBergerac]

I do not see how your suggestions have anything to do with "woo". Somethings may be possible to do tomorrow that are not possible to do today, I would say that it is more or less a fact. From history we learn thet ever new things will be thought of and made possible.

But what makes this new things possible is not "woo". Maybe one can see it as science and "woo" share the same dream only they try to reach the dream in different ways.

The "woo" way will probably never prove sucsesfull for any of your seven points the scientific way might do so. But regarding your last point I do not think the language is appropriate it would not be miracle healing if it is done through science even if the effect would look as a miracle for us today.

[Aussie Thinker]

DeBergerac,

I was really showing how ironic it is that the things “woos� claim happen are entirely possible in the future with completely realistic advances in science.

I certainly wasn’t giving the “woo� explanations and claims any credibility.

[Zep]

The problem is that the woos believe they can achieve these results now using methods that defy all attempts to define let alone measure let alone control. It is nothing more than wishful thinking at best.

Incidentally, the "brain signal control" has been around as a viable method for some time now, and is being refined even as we speak. But it is not ever likely to be telekinesis as in using your brain to directly move objects (unless you count head-butting the furniture when you fall down the stairs).

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I was thinking what woo things will science (mankind) eventually be able to really do ?

1. Telekenisis : We can order our arms to move with a thought from our brain. This thought is a simple electronic signal. No reason this cannot be extended beyond our brain by the means of an attached interpreter/amplifier and used to move things remotely (the things would also have to have a receiver etc)
2. Telepathy : Ditto with the above. Machines that can interpret our brain signal can “send� them to another receiver.
3. Ghosts/Afterlife/Spirits : Technology will one day exist to allow us to live forever. Perhaps “mapping� all our brain signals and recreating them in a machine will recreate us ?
4. UFO’s etc.. I am sure one day man will cross interstellar space (even in a non-ftl way).
5. Future seeing : Nope I can’t see how we can ever have this one !
6. Past seeing : I can technically envisage ways for this to occur. In fact we already do… reruns…lol !
7. Miracle healing. Well todays healing methods would be a miracle just a few decades ago. In the future I cannot imagine anything man will not be able to heal.

Is the woo really out of our reach ?

1) Yes, almost easy to acomplish, to a point it already happening.

2) Yes, a little more difficult, because it require some sort of correlate between "a wish" and an electrical signal.

3) No I do not believe the brain is "a computer" so, we cant be "transferred" to one.

4) Yes, I believe we will find the way to "warp" the space/time

5) and 6) No, I believe only the present exists

7) Yes, genetic research will offer us, potentially, the best medicine we can hope for.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I was thinking what woo things will science (mankind) eventually be able to really do ?

1. Telekenisis : We can order our arms to move with a thought from our brain. This thought is a simple electronic signal. No reason this cannot be extended beyond our brain by the means of an attached interpreter/amplifier and used to move things remotely (the things would also have to have a receiver etc)
2. Telepathy : Ditto with the above. Machines that can interpret our brain signal can “send� them to another receiver.

These are allready being done:

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1107/segments/1107-5.htm
An electrode-studded headband picks up the electric signals generated by Junker's brain. With practice, Junker has taught himself to increase or decrease those signals. The electrodes transmit these thought waves to a computer, which translates them into directions. Junker has rigged his sailboat to respond.

[Soapy Sam]

Having read some of the stunts we pull in the "Euwanka!" thread, I dread to think what we'll do if we ever get direct neural control of external hardware.
Sawing our own heads off by accident is likely to become a routine home event.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen


3) No I do not believe the brain is "a computer" so, we cant be "transferred" to one.


It's not? Hmmmm . . . do you believe the brain acts wholly according to physical laws?

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not? Hmmmm . . . do you believe the brain acts wholly according to physical laws?

Of course. All the evidence points that way. No particular reason a smart ape should defy the rest of the universe.

[Aussie Thinker]

The brain IS just a biological computer.

I do think science will one day be able to transfer the contents of the brain into another container(machine) and have it continue to function.

Imagine a man from just a few decades ago being told that a small sliver of silicon not only contained a billion pages of information but that it could search it find it and get more information and interpret it etc.

It is not inconceivable that in a few decades we will find EXACTLY how the brain does this and be able to replicate it.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
The brain IS just a biological computer.

I do think science will one day be able to transfer the contents of the brain into another container(machine) and have it continue to function.

Imagine a man from just a few decades ago being told that a small sliver of silicon not only contained a billion pages of information but that it could search it find it and get more information and interpret it etc.

It is not inconceivable that in a few decades we will find EXACTLY how the brain does this and be able to replicate it.

But each person's brain seems to form slightly differently... Not in grand features but in the details. Sure, I can dump memory from a PC to another PC and theoretically have it work (not really, all chips have bad gates - did I mention I'm a geek?) but you couldn't do it PC to Mac.

Poor little metaphor. I should know not to abuse it...

[Throg]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
But each person's brain seems to form slightly differently... Not in grand features but in the details. Sure, I can dump memory from a PC to another PC and theoretically have it work (not really, all chips have bad gates - did I mention I'm a geek?) but you couldn't do it PC to Mac.

Poor little metaphor. I should know not to abuse it...

Surely then, it is just a problem of producing an computer simulation of the way neural nets are formed in the human brain such that to "dump" a human's memory would be to produce a simulation of his particular neural net (the hardware/software delineation does not carry over terribly well to the human brain). A non-trivial technical problem but not, in principle, insurmountable.

[Nihilanth]

Well, while we're on the topic, I thought of something a few years back and wondered if it would be possible in the far future. I was thinking...since we have wireless modems now that let you connect to the internet from just about anywhere, would there eventually be a way to hook something like that up to someone's brain? Like, somehow work it so it utilizes the technology as if it were just a natural growth. *Scratches head.* I'm not wording this very well. But I was thinking, if your thoughts are just electrical signals, and you somehow were able to make use of, say, a satellite with your mind but dialing it up on your inner modem...
...hmmm...maybe that makes less sense in hours that aren't five AM...

[Throg]

Originally posted by Nihilanth
Well, while we're on the topic, I thought of something a few years back and wondered if it would be possible in the far future. I was thinking...since we have wireless modems now that let you connect to the internet from just about anywhere, would there eventually be a way to hook something like that up to someone's brain? Like, somehow work it so it utilizes the technology as if it were just a natural growth. *Scratches head.* I'm not wording this very well. But I was thinking, if your thoughts are just electrical signals, and you somehow were able to make use of, say, a satellite with your mind but dialing it up on your inner modem...
...hmmm...maybe that makes less sense in hours that aren't five AM...

Our brains are electro-chemical "computers", i.e. the variable chemical properties of neurons and synapse is an inextricable thought processes. This is one of the reasons that we process many types of information much slower than even a cheap computer. Thoughts are not just electrical signals, though they are an essential part of the though process as it occurs in our brains.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
5. Future seeing : Nope I can’t see how we can ever have this one !

I actually wrote a REALLY bad science fiction story about this. The concept was that computers still couldn't do fuzzy logic quite like people. However, computer brain interfaces were common. So, some people with a gift were able to take information from the computer a collate it to come up with an idea of what I large group of people might do. It was only accurate for large populations and only if the population did not know the prediction.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
Of course. All the evidence points that way. No particular reason a smart ape should defy the rest of the universe.

So why isn't the brain just a computer? Or do you think it is?

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not? Hmmmm . . . do you believe the brain acts wholly according to physical laws?

As opposed to what? Other kinds of laws?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by alfaniner
As opposed to what? Other kinds of laws?
*Dives towards alfaniner in slow motion shouting 'Nooooooooo!'*

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So why isn't the brain just a computer? Or do you think it is?

Because computers are intentionally designed, standardized (within a particular model), and much, much less complex than the human brain. Moreover, computers have no analog to the way brains are affected by chemicals, emotions, etc.

The human brain evolved by (to quasi-quote Dr. Dawkins) "non-random selection of random changes", on the african savana.

Ever wonder why certain tasks (like, say... using a computer) are hard for most folks? it's because our smart ape brains and bodies just weren't designed for it. They were designed to survive and mate, and that's it. Anything else is just bonus.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Throg
This is one of the reasons that we process many types of information much slower than even a cheap computer.

What? No, for most tasks we are FAR faster than a computer. For complex mathematical tasks, a machine is better (at root, all computing devices are just complex binary adding machines). For most other tasks, humans are far and away faster. The quickest computer in the world can't handle the amount of data (from the senses, plus internal 'maintenance' processes of the human body) that a newborn does.

If the task requires a billion loops through a procedure, a computer is better. If it requires analysis or synthesis of many disparate data streams, the brain v. 1.0 is still king.

[Throg]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
What? No, for most tasks we are FAR faster than a computer.

Perhaps you could provide some examples of tasks where we are FAR faster than computers.



For complex mathematical tasks, a machine is better (at root, all computing devices are just complex binary adding machines).

That is a gross simplification given the numerous specialised processors used in modern computers, DSPs (digital signal processors) being perhaps the most pertinent example.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Throg
Perhaps you could provide some examples of tasks where we are FAR faster than computers.

Perhaps I can...

Visual Processing (the human eye has far higher resolution than any camera)
Pattern recognition, particularly faces
audio processing, direction finding
voice recognition
process automation (autonomous systems)

And there are many more.

Nothing against computers (I am a programmer for Bob's sake...) but they are fundamentally stupid and only get really fast when designed for 1 task (your DSP would suck at chess).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Throg

That is a gross simplification given the numerous specialised processors used in modern computers, DSPs (digital signal processors) being perhaps the most pertinent example.

How do you think DSP chips work?

And more directly, aren't they transistor-based binary von Neuman machines?

[dmc]

Hmmm...suppose someday we create a computer that functions exactly like a human brain -- just as fast, just as smart, just as good at doing the things we can do as we are. Operationally indistinguishable from any other human brain.

Could it then be considered that said computer could think? And if so, would that computer have a consiousness? And if that computer were superior to us in every way -- smarter, wiser, less clouded by emotional and illogical thinking -- should we make it our leader?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by alfaniner
As opposed to what? Other kinds of laws?

We have free will, so the brain cannot wholly change according to physical laws -- yes?

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We have free will, so the brain cannot wholly change according to physical laws -- yes?

We have free will?

I doubt it, but the mechanism that determines our behaviour is so incredibly complex that it _appears_ that we have free will.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
We have free will?

I doubt it, but the mechanism that determines our behaviour is so incredibly complex that it _appears_ that we have free will.

Of course we have free will; we immediately experience it. Any philosophy which denies free will is simply internally inconsistent. If it were true that I do not have free will, and that all my thoughts simply reflect brain processes which themselves rigidly follow physical laws, then my conviction that I am conscious is simply a determined event in the brain i.e it is not at all caused by consciousness. But I know with incorrigible certitude that I am conscious. But since this incorrigible certitude would exist with or without me being conscious, we get an internal inconsistency since I cannot know something with incorrigible certitude and yet be in error i.e if in fact I am not conscious. And of course neither could I be incorrigibly certain of something, and yet not be conscious!

So we have to admit that a person's conviction that they are conscious is genuinely caused by their consciousness rather than prior physical events in the brain. The only way for the materialist minded person to escape from this dilemma is to equate the realisation that one is conscious with such prior events. But in this case we do have free will. We do what we want, and subsequently discover that our behaviour can be described by physical laws.

But certainly the denial of free will is simply nonsensical. To deny free will is an option which the materialist minded person must reject.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
[Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So why isn't the brain just a computer? Or do you think it is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

El_Spectre

Because computers are intentionally designed, standardized (within a particular model), and much, much less complex than the human brain. Moreover, computers have no analog to the way brains are affected by chemicals, emotions, etc.

The human brain evolved by (to quasi-quote Dr. Dawkins) "non-random selection of random changes", on the african savana.

Ever wonder why certain tasks (like, say... using a computer) are hard for most folks? it's because our smart ape brains and bodies just weren't designed for it. They were designed to survive and mate, and that's it. Anything else is just bonus.]

None of this is relevant. You would need to say that not all physical laws are algorithmic.

[El_Spectre]

The debate over free will has been going on for a long time and probably will do so long past our lifetimes.

Your certainty on such a complex subject is very telling though. Interesting.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
The brain IS just a biological computer.

It is conceivable that the brain is something like a computer, but stating that it IS a computer is plain wrong. The brain does somethings that are similar to what a computer does, but it also does somethings similar as a telephonic central, or complex hydraulic machines.

Descartes believed, in fact, that the brain was a very complex hydraulic machine. Go figure.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Throg
That is a gross simplification given the numerous specialised processors used in modern computers, DSPs (digital signal processors) being perhaps the most pertinent example.


Incidently, not true. Computers can really only do addition (ok, comparison). You can derive, or at least simulate all higher math from those basic operations.

Remember, everything from the lowly light switch to the mighty JREF forum servers run on simple voltage changes.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
It is conceivable that the brain is something like a computer, but stating that it IS a computer is plain wrong. The brain does somethings that are similar to what a computer does, but it also does somethings similar as a telephonic central, or complex hydraulic machines.

Descartes believed, in fact, that the brain was a very complex hydraulic machine. Go figure.

If you look you'll find the brain described pretty much across history in terms of the most advance "technology" of the time. Whether that's shadows on a wall, to a water mill, to a electromechanical telephone exchange to a digital computer.

Our parasitic outgrowths of the spinal cord are quite complex beasties but you are very right to say that we shouldn't confuse similar capabilities in our technology as meaning the brain is the same as that technology.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Darat
If you look you'll find the brain described pretty much across history in terms of the most advance "technology" of the time. Whether that's shadows on a wall, to a water mill, to a electromechanical telephone exchange to a digital computer.

Our parasitic outgrowths of the spinal cord are quite complex beasties but you are very right to say that we shouldn't confuse similar capabilities in our technology as meaning the brain is the same as that technology.

Exactly, thats all my point. Furthermore. We have now at least half a century of scientist saying that AI is "very close". Well, it hasnt been that easy. The same goes for memory. If our computers where so much like our brain, why we have been unable to "copy" the memories of a simple fly in a computer?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
The debate over free will has been going on for a long time and probably will do so long past our lifetimes.

Your certainty on such a complex subject is very telling though. Interesting.

What's wrong with my proof?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
If you look you'll find the brain described pretty much across history in terms of the most advance "technology" of the time. Whether that's shadows on a wall, to a water mill, to a electromechanical telephone exchange to a digital computer.

Our parasitic outgrowths of the spinal cord are quite complex beasties but you are very right to say that we shouldn't confuse similar capabilities in our technology as meaning the brain is the same as that technology.

It's not the same as obviously the brain is vastly more complex. But that's not important. Either our brain operates according to physical laws or it doesn't. If it does, and physical laws can be expressed as algorithms, then necessarily we are essentially computers.

Replace your neurons one by one in your brain with electronic chips which perform the precise same function. What would you feel as your neurons were replaced one by one? What would you feel once all your neurons had been completely replaced?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Exactly, thats all my point. Furthermore. We have now at least half a century of scientist saying that AI is "very close". Well, it hasnt been that easy. The same goes for memory. If our computers where so much like our brain, why we have been unable to "copy" the memories of a simple fly in a computer?

No, if materialism is correct then we are computers. The reason why AI has been so spectacularly unsuccessful is because materialism is false.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course we have free will; we immediately experience it. Any philosophy which denies free will is simply internally inconsistent. If it were true that I do not have free will, and that all my thoughts simply reflect brain processes which themselves rigidly follow physical laws, then my conviction that I am conscious is simply a determined event in the brain i.e it is not at all caused by consciousness.

Granting this for the sake of argument (although there is no evidence whatsover to support the claim that consciousness cannot arise out of a deterministic system):

But I know with incorrigible certitude that I am conscious.


This is simply incorrect. You believe with incorrigible confidence that you are conscious, but have no evidence at all that you are correct.

In fact, you even acknowlege that you might be incorrect:


But since this incorrigible certitude would exist with or without me being conscious,



we discover that this whole argument is a fallacious misunderstanding of the difference between P and Belief-that-P.



we get an internal inconsistency since I cannot know something with incorrigible certitude and yet be in error i.e if in fact I am not conscious.


But you could, of course, "believe with incorrigible confidence" in anything you like, irrespective of the truth or falsity of the belief.

It's called "self-delusion." You should familiarize yourself with what it looks like from the outside.....

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, if materialism is correct then we are computers. The reason why AI has been so spectacularly unsuccessful is because materialism is false.

Lesse, cellular biology is only a few centuries old...

Serious study of the human brain less than a century...

And Computers are only about 60 years old.

I'm no brain expert, but I AM a computer expert, and I'm gonna wager that both are much more complex than you know.

Philosophers can expound definitively all day, but no serious scientist would make the absolute statements you will.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by El_Spectre


I'm no brain expert, but I AM a computer expert, and I'm gonna wager that both are much more complex than you know.



More complex than Ian knows? Surely you jest.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by new drkitten
More complex than Ian knows? Surely you jest.

That's OK, I'm sure I'll be told that I am, without doubt, incorrect :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course we have free will; we immediately experience it. Any philosophy which denies free will is simply internally inconsistent. If it were true that I do not have free will, and that all my thoughts simply reflect brain processes which themselves rigidly follow physical laws, then my conviction that I am conscious is simply a determined event in the brain i.e it is not at all caused by consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Granting this for the sake of argument (although there is no evidence whatsover to support the claim that consciousness cannot arise out of a deterministic system):



Agreed that there is no evidence, but I have something more important; namely reasons; reasons moreover which amount to proof.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I know with incorrigible certitude that I am conscious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is simply incorrect. You believe with incorrigible confidence that you are conscious, but have no evidence at all that you are correct.



Consciousness is simply a collective term to refer to all ones experiences. Thus, for example, I experience emotions. By emotions I do not simply mean the behaviour resulting from such emotions (or the emotions viewed from without as the reductivist materialist might put it), but rather the raw experiences themselves. Now the notion that I have raw emotions is something which is directly given. To be clear: the notion that I am a self (or an *I*) is not. So I do not agree with Descartes statement "I think therefore I am". But we cannot deny that we experience, because experiences are not a conclusion, nor an interpretation, but are directly apprehended. They are simply a given.

If someone continues to insist that they do not know they are conscious (i.e they "believe" that they are unconscious automatons (p-zombies)), then bully for them. But I know with incorrigible certitude that *I* am not.


In fact, you even acknowlege that you might be incorrect:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But since this incorrigible certitude would exist with or without me being conscious,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's precisely the contradiction. From the notion that we do not have free will then I could be mistaken in my "belief" that I am conscious. But that is unintelligible.




we discover that this whole argument is a fallacious misunderstanding of the difference between P and Belief-that-P.



I hope you now understand why it is not fallacious.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
Lesse, cellular biology is only a few centuries old...

Serious study of the human brain less than a century...

And Computers are only about 60 years old.

I'm no brain expert, but I AM a computer expert, and I'm gonna wager that both are much more complex than you know.

Philosophers can expound definitively all day, but no serious scientist would make the absolute statements you will.

The brain's complexity has nothing to do with the notion that it is essentially a computer. Physical complexity does not make something not a computer.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not the same as obviously the brain is vastly more complex. But that's not important. Either our brain operates according to physical laws or it doesn't. If it does, and physical laws can be expressed as algorithms, then necessarily we are essentially computers.



Lots of assumptions and "ifs" in that paragraph and I suspect that for my remaining lifespan they will remain assumptions and "ifs" – but I’d love my suspicions to be wrong.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Replace your neurons one by one in your brain with electronic chips which perform the precise same function. What would you feel as your neurons were replaced one by one? What would you feel once all your neurons had been completely replaced?

I have no idea. And why "electronic chips"? Why not water wheels or shadows on cave walls?

Your question just illustrates the point I was making i.e. "we shouldn't confuse similar capabilities in our technology as meaning the brain is the same as that technology."

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The brain's complexity has nothing to do with the notion that it is essentially a computer. Physical complexity does not make something not a computer.

Nope, but it does render the absolute statements of a relative ignorant rather amusing.