What about the quark model or preon models? The knowledge of the quarks and their properties was known before they were actually observed, like preons aren't observed directly today. Can we say that they are somehow observed in the chaos of observations? Can we consider it as a priori knowledge? The model is of course based on observation but we never had direct evidence for them, in the low energy realm. Neither were there observations of black holes. Can we say prefabricated knowledge about the world is a priori knowledge?

It's gotta be admitted that Jagger went low on Negritta and high on Fool to Cry. Never heared Jimbo going high. On voice, that is. "Let's start a religion". Horse latitudes. Never understood that one. But it's wide.

Was Christ just hanging around? Was he an eternalist? Did only he had a torch in the block universe? How could god have constructed it? Why did Nietzsche said God was dead? Did he believe in God and just was man enough to declare him dead? I wonder if he had the guts to yell this at Central Square in Teheran. "God is death, BUT ALLAH AKHBAR!"

Still, the woven contours are fascinating! It's all there in the first lines. It's basically rotating vectors in the complex plane and filling in each others previous (n-1) values in their n state, bringing a P[0.1] along, differentiate (taking the ratio of differentials, which are somewhat strange math entities, but comprehensible) the e powers wrt t, and filling in numbers. But to contemplate such intricate is something else. I can't remember I have seen these when I did complex analysis. Did residues and contour integration, etc. but this seems new. Or is it a normal thing in the field. Did you turn it into a visual? :chin:

Yes. But then the cause has become the effect and the effect the cause. Entropy will get smaller and smaller. The universe will end on a singularity. And a new universe will spring into being at infinity. With maximum entropy i.e., scrambled photons carrying the information of the universe to reversely be.To contract again, while creatures arise from the grave, words are inhaled, and babies are sucked back in the womb. How would such a world feel like? Like a puppet on reverse strings? Like those puppets with a clockwork inside, to excite with a key?

The addict looks for comfort or relief in a world devoid of meaning, except for the empty, though world-stuffing, ephemeral meaning looked for in the sciences we are hung in from young age on, hold at our Achilles heel while struggling against it in vain. The drugs merely fill an unsatisfied emptiness, unable, while giving a temporary high, to substantially provide a smoking pistol for the bright flash. Religion might do the trick. So any atheist claim is or an attempt to climb the power hierarchy of science, or a striking disability (a birth defect maybe) to understand or to even try to understand, the motives of the theists.

I believe that would be the algorithm. — Constance

Not sure if gathering knowledge follows a program.

But consider taht language itself is an application of the "scientific method" — Constance

This presupposes there is such a method to arrive at knowledge. But is there truly? Wouldn't we be able then to write a computer program, feed it with sensory data, and run the program?

a priori knowledge is supposed to be theoretical right? — SpaceDweller

A neonatico must have knowledge of the world already when pushed out of the womb. A priori knowledge has to be theoretical, or else it wouldn't be a priori, indeed.

Every new form of knowledge is based on instinct and countless unconscious "experiments", encounters with reality. Every new stage of knowledge is like being pooped in the world again.

The purpose of this thread is to thrash this out among ourselves. I'm doing the best I can to be clear, but some vagueness and confusion is to be expected. — T Clark

:up:

I think examples might help. And maybe from there give abstractions, generalizations, knowledge categories, or meta knowledge.

I fear so too. It's not exactly clear though what you mean about a priori knowledge and what kind of knowledge you refer to. You give a lot of definitions from the web, but its still somewhat unclear to me. But, of course that can be me. What if knowledge is god-given, or partly predetermined in the moment of creation? So some thing we know are already "known" unconsciously at birth, a priori, without any experience whatsoever? If...

For instance, mathematicians need not concern themselves with whether numbers exist independently of the mind. The question is non-mathematical. — jamalrob

Still, Mandelbröt, when he contemplated his set, emphasized that he thought he truly had dis/uncovered a truly, really existing feature of reality. So not a "mere" construction of the mind. That seemed important to him.

That's design, not a priori knowledge. Design is applying principles I've learned elsewhere to a new situation. — T Clark

It's design, true. But you need to know in advance if your design won't crumble on construction. In other words, you have to know in advance, a priori, what the new construction must be about, more or less. Of course you have seen trees over a river, but to base your bridge on a fallen tree... There has to be, somewhat vague still, premeditated knowledge of some sort. Your design will influence your knowledge and vice-versa. True, some based on previous encounters, but new a priori too (which may turn out good or bad, like the resonating of the bridge.

If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness, does that count as knowledge of some sort? — SpaceDweller

I'm not sure if that's true in the first place, in my humble opinion. To recognize yourself in the mirror (without being scared...) you need some knowledge of your face.

That doesn't make sense to me — T Clark

Okay. Let's analyze. When you construct a bridge, don't you need a kind of premonition of how to do that? Don't you somehow construct it mentally first? Don't you need a priori knowledge of the bridge you construct first? Knowledge which practice, later, during or after construction, can be amended?

:chin: I'm sorry, DOES NOT COMPUTE! — Agent Smith

:up:

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it. — T Clark

You think the innate concept of quantity, undeniably present in animals, is an innate knowledge of math? Dunno. You can elaborate playing with quantities in space endlessly. Construct zillions of relationships between them. That evolves. Giving a priori knowledge of the world. Einstein never saw curved spacetime. He had a priori knowledge of black holes. A baby has a lot of instinctive knowledge about the world when pooped in it. It has too. Without a priori, tacit, instinctive, intuitive, knowledge, necessarily vague still, it won't be possible to continue living after being pooped.

Are you saying the only way I could have an original idea is a priori — T Clark

No. I'm saying that you gotta have a priori knowledge of something you gonna construct. If not, the plan is doomed to fail. How can you have knowledge of something not existing before you have made it? How does a beaver know how to build them dams?

Does that mean you think about it? This emoticon always confuses me. I rub my chin once in a while too, but why? I nibble a pen(cil) too. Kojak sucked a lolly. You can stick a straw in your mouth. Why men do this? To show they can eat you raw? Should this emoticon be included? Where can I introduce a new one? The pencil nibbler. Somehow similar to this one.

Do your qualifications and years of experience in the field of neuroscience and biological engineering convince you of this or is it just your opinion, your educated guesswork based on your reading in the general area? — universeness

If you mean by qualified a piece of paper showing I have a degree in bioengineering or neuroscience, no. But I have seen, read, and thought about it. I don't know about the intricacies of computer science. I had an oral examination on the subject. I thought that was rather strange for a physics study. It was compulsory stuff! When the professor asked me "who" did do a certain job (it was the operating system, if I remember correctly, and probably the reason I passed was me asking him uncomfortable questions...), I knew for sure. Are they serious?

Until now, computers and robots haven't impressed me. You can glue a face on a robot but the robot is always faking you being conscious.

It's pictured very nicely in SF fantasies. Like in Ex Machina. But you just can't program consciousness or switch it on or off. It has to evolve naturally. The only things machines excell in: speed and quantity, loads of information pushed programmed along on a linea recta micro grid. It's like replacing a wildly flowing river, over jagged, fractal, chaotic terrain, by a system of vertical and horizontal tubes through which the river water is pumped programmed and piece-wise on the rhythm of a hyperclock.

Enjoy your fantasies! Thanks for the exchange! :smile:

We must try before we die! — Agent Smith

Yes, Suicide is the last thing I do. But depression being caused by serotonin deficiency overlooks, in my optimist opinion, the cause for the deficiency, which in a broader context can be seen as an effect of depressing causes. Somehow, the view that neurotransmitter shortage is the cause has it backwards. Depressing circumstances can do the trick.

-Woman
A Sum of infinite complex vectors, with time-variable lengths and rotating with time dependent angular velocities, similar to, but not to be confused with Fourier series:

$c_1(t)e^{i\omega _1 t}+ c_2(t)e^{i\omega _2 t} +c_3(t)e^{i\omega _3 t} +...c_n(t)e^{i\omega _n t}... c_{\infty}(t)e^{i\omega _{\infty}t}$

Depression:
The minimum of the God Function, of which sights have been reported. Its exact shape remains largely unknown. Progress is being made though, and probably within the current decade the problem is solved. Breakthroughs have recently been achieved.

Religion:
The God Function

Atheism:
The Hermitian conjugate of the God Function. Though it has been conjectured It's the inverse. Depends on the God Function. Extremist atheists consider the minus symbol sufficient.

Pessimism:
The constant function $f(x)=-{\infty}$

Cause:
This one is kind of tricky. There are lots of thoughts about cause and effect. Let's take the physical approach. A force causing an irreversible increase in entropy. Which means every process. Even the seemingly reversible process of two particles interacting by a coupling to a mediating virtual field. Force is the causing factor while initial conditions determine if time goes forwards or backwards. If cause precedes effect or effect cause. Cause cannot exist without effect. So let's define cause as the generator of the effect, separated in time. The most general cause is a non-local one. The particular local cause being a limit of the non-local cause. How can we define the generator of cause? How does matter forces, causes, other matter to change velocity? By coupling to the intermediary virtual condensate, omnipresent in space. How does matter couple to it? By means of charge. Electric charge couples to the virtual photon field. The virtual fields couple, again because of charge, couple to other virtual fields, giving rise to higher order interaction. For example, the virtual photon field couples to the virtual electron field only, which again can couple to the virtual photon field, which again can couple to the virtual electron field, etc. The changes in momentum of two charged particles is caused by all this virtual mediating. The Feynman diagrams represent all this virtual intermediary happenings. A first order diagram by coupling to a virtual intermediary photon (in popular prose referred to as a photon exchanged, which is a rather inaccurate description, as is the short appearance of particle/antiparticle pairs which is actually just one particle rotating). Second order diagrams by permitting the virtual photon to interact with a virtual electron (closed loop) or including an extra virtual photon. Third order by permitting an extra virtual electron again or permitting the previously added virtual electron to couple to a virtual photon. Etcetera, etcetera. This procedure is supposed to go on and on, giving rise to divergent integrals, which are solved by renormalizing. The supposed(!) point-like nature of fundamental matter is the root of the problem. Circumvent this problem (as is only partially done in string theory), and no renormalization needs to be done (Dirac called it a stop gap procedure and Feynman thought it a magic joke).

So, how can we describe a cause with math? Good question! I'll leave the answer to fellow philosophers. What has to be included? Force or interaction. Time running in one direction. Which could be backwards but then the effect precedes the cause, i.e., the effect becomes the cause, while the cause becomes the effect. There should be charges included. And mass. Velocity. Is gravity actually a causing force? Good question. Shall we make an effort?

If it walks like a.....squawks like a ......and talks like a......then it is a neuron. — universeness

Chalmers wrote if you replace a neuron by a device coupled to the neurons the neuron was coupled to, and if that device stimulated the neurons it is coupled to in the same way the neuron does (when stimulated by coupled neurons), there will be no difference for the brain function. But think about it. This won't work.

Ha! Yes. The infinitesimal idea. Infinitely close but still something. There will always stay a distance to zero. How can that be? If we approach zero, the point zero and we zoom in, there will always be a space between where we are and zero. At which distance the differential is an infinitesimal? When they touch? But then it's a point. Is an infinitesimal a point? No. Its an infinitely small difference. A tiny 2d linepiece. But if its a linepiece and there a distance? Yes. Infinitely small. Some concept!

But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!” — Gus Lamarch

Deer good gods... Where did it go wrong with this sad figure. Couldn't he get any relief in his miserable pathetic life? Was it Munch on dope? Munch after dope? Damned, where did humanity took the wrong turn... It's depressing! Redemptioooon!

Because you have next to no idea what mathematics is. — I like sushi

How do you know that? I did my share of scattering amplitude calculations or cross sections. Their derivation from path integrals is basically summing.

If it walks like a.....squawks like a ......and talks like a......then it is a neuron. — universeness

If a ..... peeps like a neuron then it's a neuron? The phone sounds like my wife sometimes...

Well here's a start: — universeness

That's no neuron! Not even a start. Only a simulation of potentials.

Here is another more serious attempt for undergrads: — universeness

Where I read: "Basic Neuron Model Electrical Equivalent Circuit"

That is, no neuron. Only a programmed simulation of neuron potentials. No spike potentials actually running like on a real living neuron.

Here is an actual claim for Scientists at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute: — universeness

Again. In the article: "Artifical neuron mimicks function of human cells".

No real neuron.

You mean total loss?

Math is just a language. It is said to be the language of nature but nature only speaks it if you force it. It's no unìversal language.

This is completely inaccurate! When you use terms like 'push' or 'external program,' you have to be very clear about the context. External to what? the clock line? the control bus? the processor? RAM space? the computer? — universeness

A computer uses an external voltage to push the electrons along. This voltage is programmed to push and pull. The spike potentials in the brain run autonomously. They follow the fractal shapes of the neurons, without an external voltage pulling them in a programmed way.

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me if we cant even construct a neuron, then it’s pretty clear that we can't construct 80 billion interconnected of them at work in a body. With an on and off switch!

If you are only familiar with high school mathematics then you have literally no clue what mathematics actual is. — I like sushi

In fact, I would write the opposite! If you know high school math you know it all, basically.

Creating a new consciousness or self-aware android is not fantasy as it is projected from real empirical evidence, unlike your polytheism. — universeness

Nonsense. It's a fantasy which it will always stay. Can we construct a brain in a lab? No. The gods are far more real.

What's the empirical evidence? A piece of mechanical construct, operating at a hyperspeedy clock, wearing the mask of a japanese girl, artificially giving programmed advice or answering questions? Fake consciousness... What's the obsession with technology? Why not being satisfied with natural evolved consciousness? The only consciousness. AS... artificial stupidity....

You just repackage the same points again and again. The brain contains static data at any time instant. static just means unchanged (yet). Based on that you can estimate brain capacity at 2.5 petabytes. — universeness

Of course the brain contains every instant of time an information content. Like I said, it contains a maximum of the the number of Planck areas on the body, if we look at the whole body-brain integrated structure. That's about maximum 10exp66 bits, if we crammed the mass of a black hole with a Schwarzschild area comparable to the body's area, in the volume occupied by the body. Which obviously isn't reached. And neither is it in a computer. You should use each preon for a zero or one for that.

But that number is not what counts for consciousness or true intelligence. It's the way the matter is organized. In a computer the currents are pushed along by an external program running at clock speed. Every tick of the clock, a pattern of voltages is pushed to the next configuration on a linea recta grid on the micro chip. A zillion times per second. And you may have a zillion 1 or 0 voltages, changing a zillion times per second because an external program pushes them along, this is not what happens in a brain.

The brain is an unprogrammed freely unfolding process on the lighting shaped neural network, which has a history containing the whole universe. The computer has no start at the big bang, like bodies and brains, but it's start is a certain way of thinking (programmatic) and the human hand.

Show me where the program in the brain is located.

To me, the structure of nature is perfect (mathematical) and that, to my reckoning, is (true) beauty.

What we believe is beauty though is, on that view, imperfection — Agent Smith

Had to think about that one! What is the structure of nature? Most structures in nature don't have a counterpart in math. What's the mathematical structure of a face? A facoid? What's the mathematical expression for that facoid?

you have just taken as gospel the very thesis whose credibility is in question, namely that every cause precedes its effect. — Bartricks

What do you think about them then? All-in-one?

The cause must always be anterior to the effect. — Agent Smith

Unless time flows backwards. Then what we call effect gets ahead of cause. Tceffe->esuac. Or will the effect become the cause then?

(W)hol(l)y shit! — Janus

:lol:

Say that again! Goddamned! I mean... eeehh... what do I mean?

And monads. — Jackson

What about them? Can't monads exist in many worlds? Nomads travel between them. Monads stay in one.

One is not immortal in the MWI. At one branching point one encounters a superposition of death. The so-called death collapse.

Like I said, dark matter is black hole, dark energy is negatively curved 4d space, pushing apart matter on two 3d universes. So what to do now we know that and the basic structure of matter? What is there still to be found at the fundaments? An existential void kicks in...

DE and DM have nothing in common. Apart from being dark.

But I don't expect it to be resolved in my lifetime. — Wayfarer

You'll live another 10 years... :smile: