/sci/ - Science & Math

Talking about physical information, of course.

abstract, like in essential, or abstract like in general?

people have a problem with that word. besides, i dunno.

I don't have a source for this, so this could very well be me lying to you, but...

I read somewhere that it's possible that quantum mechanics plays a part in human memory storage.

If this is true, is it possible that information is an extra dimension of time or space, or maybe of it's own type?

Is it possible that sentience derives from the our brains interacting with this dimension on a quantum level?

>>5241275

Expanding on these crazy ideas...

Drugs like DMT, somehow change the function of memory so that we're able to see directly into this place of pure information? Perhaps the common phenomena of hallucinating "clockwork elves" is you experiencing things that live wholy in the dimension of information

I'm not sure if abstraction is the best word, but if you mean to say or imply that information isn't real then yeah, I agree. Information is suppose to be some higher-order abstraction we ascribe to physical states and the measurements of them. Information is the map not the territory.

>>5241283

But information is real, light travels in packets of information.

This is well documented

>>5241282

You clearly have no idea about how the human brain works...

>>5241286

Please tell me where i'm wrong, so I can know and add it to my eternal pondering.

>>5241286

Oh wait, I didn't say anything about the function of the brain that isn't impossible.

Go back to your sophmore physics class

>>5241289

To perceive something, you need two things:
1. Something that can be perceived (as in "something that interacts with your sensory system)
2. A sensory organ.

There is no evidence for the "place" you propose nor evidence for the human mind having a sensory organ that would interact with such a place.
So I'm left to assume you are just following that train of thought because it "sounds cool". Not the scientific approach.

There are several explainations for the phenomenons you mention that make less assumptions and that are backed by evidence.

Aside from that, memory is not perception.

>>5241290

Actually, you said "somehow change the function of memory".

Unless you would localize your memory way down in your genitals, I assume you were talking about the brain.

>>5241299

Uhh, you can perceive memories and if DMT changed the function of memory then you could perceive the changed function in memorys

>>5241299

Isaac Newton and Einstein would like to talk to you about discrediting "cool ideas"

>>5241304

You do not "perceive" memories. There is no "input". You RECALL/retrieve memories.

Seeing as our difference in expertise on the field is tremendous, I suggest we stop this conversation, as it will only lead to me being even more disappointed in the human race and further your confusion.

>>5241309
>can't think outside the box
>dismisses new ideas and thought experiments
>trolls instead and claims to have won

Why do you hate scientific progress?

>>5241309

Okay, let me just make it clear here. You're saying that writing/reading from memory is NOT an I/O operation? Because that's complete bullshit, from a programmers perspective, even writing and reading from RAM is input and output operations, and I'm pretty fucking sure it works the same way in the human brain, otherwise you're basically stating that putting stuff in memory is magic. Recalling memories is clearly input.

>>5241309

What's up with all insults?

I'm trying to understand why I'm wrong, yet you offer me no clear answer and only vague statements wrapped in jabs at my intelligence.

Recall or perceive, you're still able to experience your memories. If DMT changed the way memory worked, you could experience the change.

>>5241313
>>5241309
>>5241299

Also, I'm pretty sure that you need analytical capabilities to "perceive" something. A camera can perceive reality according to you.

>>5241313

The only way of seeing memory recall as an I/O operation is adding consciousness. A word I try to avoid on this board, since it causes shitstorms beyond imagination.
However, this is NOT perception.

>>5241314
There is a difference between "not thinking outside of the box" and using your knowledge to dismiss ideas that are baseless piles of bullshit. I also didn't claim I had won. I said this discussion would lead to nothing, because our difference in expertise is too big.

>>5241315
I told you where you're wrong but I have the feeling that you're not looking for truth but instead for something to prove your "theory".
Btw, NOW you use the word "experience". That's something I can agree on. If something influenced, in what ever way, how your "memory works", then you would probably be able to experience that in some way.

>>5241317

You are in fact right.

>>5241328

I never called it a theory, I called it "Crazy ideas" here >>5241282

Using the word perceive in place of experience was an error on my part because experience is what I meant initially. Chalk it up to my limited vocabulary.

>>5241287
>>5241287
>>5241287
pleb ass retard here. tell me how this works please

>>5241333

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1TVZIBj7UA

Explained in a simple way for non-physicists

>>5241332

Then, good sir, we have resolved this matter.

However, I'm having problems understanding your initial statement about this "place of information". I don't see how evolution would grant us a way of perceiving it.

>>5241328
Why do you argue with trolls and shitposters? The debate started with a guy claiming that taking drugs gives you access to a magical land of pure information. How the fuck can you reply seriously to such obvious nonsense?

>>5241337

A dangerous concoction of boredom and curiosity.

>>5241335

Like I said in an earlier post, I may or may not have read somewhere and I may or may not be completely lying to you but...

I read somewhere that quantum mechanics could play a part in memory

If that is true, how would cells come to utilize quantum mechanics in their function? Also a good amount living things produce DMT?

My idea was that the DMT molecule interacting the receptors somehow influences these quantum processes (Though, this is the part of my idea that I have no idea has any basis on reality, i'm not sure how Atomic structures can influence quantum mechanics)

I've heard a lot, but am not completely sure is true, that your brain releases DMT when you sleep and that influences dreaming. Perhaps your brain is tuning itself to pick up to "get a better signal" from this place of information

>>5241337

>Get a load of this Copernicus guy, he thinks the sun is in the middle of the universe!

The human body is purely chemistry, the brain is purely chemistry, drugs are chemicals.

>>5241337
Well, as a most of brain activity is based on chemical reactions, altering those chemical reactions in some way can alter the way brain perceives information gathered from sensory organs. So we can have these "revelations of pure information land" which are in fact only products of imagination and memory recall. Perhaps even through our brain trying to process things that normally do not make any sense.
If we see reality in some different way, there is a possibility it can bring different understanding. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
I guess.

>>5241337

If this is the kind of people who are interested in a /sci/ence board, I weep for /sci/ence

>>5241337

>There's this newton guy who keeps saying that there's this invisible force that makes everything pull together!
>How ridiculous!

>>5241352
You're referring to The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose.

Read this. http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm

>>5241367

Thank you very much on the source of Quantum Mechanics playing a role in conciousness

>>5241328
>The only way of seeing memory recall as an I/O operation is adding consciousness

Why? You input and output data, that's just as much I/O as saving something on a hard drive.

>>5241330

Then define perceive, because I disagree that a camera can perceive reality. An intelligent being can, but a camera cannot.

>>5241432
What the hell are you talking about?

Camera's don't "perceive" anything. They record photons.

Only human consciousness can perceive the physical world, and the physical world that is perceived is not even reality. It's an interpretation, not the thing-in-itself.

did you even read the Penrose review?

>>5241437
>Camera's don't "perceive" anything. They record photons.

This is exactly what I'm saying, the faggot I'm responding to says they can perceive reality if I understand him right.

>and the physical world that is perceived is not even reality. It's an interpretation, not the thing-in-itself.

Correct.

>>5241437
Sorry, responding to the wrong faggot.

Experience informs our conception of the world, yes, which is enabled by our conscious.

Defining consciousness is the Hard(est) Problem and I don't think Op is going to get the flash-frozen answer he wants today, not on 4chan. Jesus.

>>5241437
Nonsense. There is no such thing as a soul / consciousness. If you believe in it, please show the evidence or fuck off to /x/. Observation and measurement only require physical devices and our eyes are nothing but physical devices. Our bodies are physical and don't need have any metaphysical magic.

>>5241462

You need something to interpret the data. This is where the brain comes in, but it doesn't mean conciousness.

>>5241264
All information has a an underlying physical thingy. Information is... stuff. It's certainly not something that's not stuff, nothing is something that's not stuff.

>>5241462
I believe in conciousness. It's that thing what "experiences qualia" (whatever that means). I don't believe in souls that survive the body, it's just a poetic thing to call a conscious thingamaroo.
This guy >>5241437, though.
>Only human consciousness can perceive the physical world
haha.

>>5241472
When you can build a AI that can pass the Turing test, come back and chortle. Until then, you're a Skinnerian buffoon.

>>5241328
>However, this is NOT perception.
I loled.

>>5241463
>
You need something to interpret the data
So much stupidity...

>>5241463
The "thing" that experiences the world is called "consciousness", like it or not. It's the very definition of "experiencing the world."

Unless you have a better word or are prepared to refute Emmanuel Kant and Roger Penrose.

Good luck..

>>5241496

I never argued against conciousness in that sentence, I merely pointed out that you need something to analyze data, otherwise you're just a recorder. That doesn't imply conciousness at all.

>>5241490

Tell me where the stupidity is, because to make use of input you need to analyze the data, and that means interpreting it.

>>5241496
Experiencing the world only requires receiving physical input. It has nothing to do with magic or a soul. Please go back to /x/ with your pseudoscience crackpottery.

>>5241499
>Tell me where the stupidity is, because to make use of input you need to analyze the data, and that means interpreting it.
Try and prove this.

>>5241496
Ok guys, either we define consciousness as "the thing which experiences the world", but then your Roomba has a consciousness, too.

Or we define it in the traditional meaning of human language (Wikipedia: "quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself"), but then you lack any proof it actually applies to the human brain.

>>5241518
>Try and prove this.

Okay, simple example then. A camera only saves its input, it does not interpret it, thus it doesn't do anything else than saving it. The same applies to any kind of robot that does measurements, it has to interpret the input before it can do anything with it.

>>5241522
Fine for your camera, but the flaw in your thesis is that cameras "interpret" information by human-written algorithms. The human brain does not use algorithms or strong AI would be rocking and rolling, which it most assuredly ain't. We have not a fucking clue what's going on in the human brain.

Now what?

>>5241528

Regardless of intelligence or not, it does interpret data as long as it has the means to do that, ie. an algorithm.

>>5241528
>We do not yet understand the algorithms of the human brain, therefore it has no algorithms.

That was one of the most ignorant posts I've seen so far.

>>5241522
That isn't a proof at all.

The point you guys need to get is that what you call "interpretation" or "analyzation" is actually just a translation between different kinds of data structures. However, that isn't a functional property of the process as far as we know. Japanese speakers who read a Japanese translation of Hamlet would still say they've "read Hamlet".
Atm, I know of no proof that there is no way to record any data so that it is possible to reason about it immediately, making an interpretation necessary. We can all agree that the brain having a "data intepretation" step of some kind is LIKELY, but it's not an intrinsic part of anything as far as we know.

>>5241531
You obviously don't know what an algorithm is or how they are employed in advanced robotics. Further, you have no idea of the state of Strong AI and how it has been stalled for almost twenty years because of wrong-headed assumptions by illogicians such as yourself.

Well, bye bye, this has been a waste.

>>5241548
Cool projection.

>>5241548
>claims AI doesn't need algorithms
>promotes dualism
>calls others ignorant

0/10 troll, too obvious

>>5241336
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1TVZIBj7UA
so how does that imply that photons are (just) packets of information?

Mushrooms are magical. I know it's true because it says so in the mushroom bible.

>>5241432

For INput and OUTput, you need a "place" where something can go IN and OUT. That "place" would be consciousness... IF you insist on seeing memory recall as an I/O operation, which I don't.

>>5241432
You do realize that I said that I agree with you? Also you can look up my definition of perception a few posts earlier.

>>5242934

The place would be the brain. The brain does not imply conciousness, that is simply a device.

There is no such thing as physical information. All information are arbitrary. Take 2 rocks, whats left if you take out all the information out of the rock? Its not nothing, its undefined. If we remove those abstraction, we can see reality

>>5242968

It can not go IN the brain because it was never OUTSIDE of it... or where do you think your memory is stored? In your toenails?

>>5244594

The hard drive is IN the computer, so is the RAM, but it's still called INput and OUTput because it goes from storage -> processor -> where-ever the fuck you put it next