/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6550307
/sci/?

The creator is by definition at least as complex as his creation.

>>6550307
No, case of point simple algorithm results in complex images.
>Also, is there a definite way to define or measure complexity? Could the possible number of states be one way?
Technically yes, one example being what you said, in practice no thanks to in adequate measurements and definitions.

>Humans have made some complex things over the years, but nothing comes close to the complexity of our own brains or even a single cell
Wrong

>>6550379
>No, case of point simple algorithm results in complex images.
I'm not familiar with the algorithm, but aren't we the creators of that algorithm, so in the end, no matter what the result, its still not as complex as us.

>>6550381
Elaborate

>>6550384
Windows 7 is more complicated than your dna bro

>>6550384
Image is more complex that the algorithm.
If you want to take that approach protocells and single cell organisms are less complex than us

>>6550394
But the DNA isn't really supposed to be that complex, right?. It's just massive. Like a dictionary. Is Win7 more complex than a cell?

>>6550396
But the image and algorithm are both our creations.

We evolved from single cell organisms, but they didn't 'create' us.

>>6550401
lel
What if the algorithm wasn't our creation? It still creates more complex images than itself. I didn't say where the algorithm came, it's just a direct counter example of your argument of a thing creating another thing that is more complex than itself.
You can't just cop out from all the cases that go against your ideology by saying "but that X was actually created by something more complex so it doesn't count" because that is exactly the thing you are trying to argue for.

Isn't the human mind infinitely complex?

>>6550422
The algorithm would need to have either been created or evolved; come into being in some way. If it was not created, it should be intelligent, since it can 'create' something complex out of something simple.

We 'taught' it or wrote the guidelines through which it creates the more complex image. Its more of a tool for us, isn't it?

>>6550425
I wouldn't say infinite.

>>6550438
> If it was not created, it should be intelligent, since it can 'create' something complex out of something simple.
No you just used your argument as a fact again, it's not.
An algorithm creating an complex image is direct counter argument for this
>does the creator always have to be more complex than the creation?

>>6550448
Post the algorithm. I wanna see it.

>>6550438
I feel that you are looking at a limited view of creations in making your argument. Out of all the things that people have created, I agree that none of it is more complex than we are.

However, if you look at the grand canyon or just about any river delta, I'd say they are more complex than the processes that created them. I'm no geologist, but a little bit of uplift, lower oceans, and erosion by water and wind created the grand canyon. To me, the canyon is a lot more complex than those processes.

This is all subjective until you define complexity in an objective way though. One way you could put it is the total number of different parts working to together in a system, but that also ignores the geometry and positioning of those parts, and any regulation they might have.

>>6550307
Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex.
/thread

>>6550453
Not sure if retarded.
There are literally infinite algorithms that generate images pic related one of them.
You can pretty much just put any simple rules you want and you get complex images.
Another good example is Conway's Game of Life or similar.

>>6550456
Yeah, I was gonna argue that uplift and erosion would involve dynamics, which are inherently, usually, I guess, more complex than static systems.

>>6550474
That's not very complex, though. Sure it looks it, but all the program does is repeat itself.

>>6550474
What exactly is complex about it? Its self repeating, basically. Large in number and smaller in size, but not complex. In fact, it can be summarized by the algorithm itself, which isn't complex.

>>6550456
What makes it so complex?

>>6550493
The Grand Canyon, I mean.

>>6550479
>That's not very complex, though. Sure it looks it, but all the program does is repeat itself.
The image is extremely complex tending to infinity, that one being 1.25MB in size, the algorithm is simple.
Which was my point all along a simple algorithm creating arbitrarily high complexity image.

>>6550486
>What exactly is complex about it?
The complexity? Requires fairly large amount of information to present in this case 1.25 MB
> Its self repeating
no it's not
>In fact, it can be summarized by the algorithm itself, which isn't complex.
yes the algorithm is simple but creates immensely complex image in fact the image requires infinite amount of information to represent in it's full amount.
If that is not complex please define complex because I can guarantee that nothing is.

>>6550505
it's actually not complex though. let's say you zoom in REALLY fucking far into that fractal somewhere. now zoom out. it's all erased. now zoom in again. the algorithm doesn't collectively save every single piece, it works as you go. sorry i couldn't put it more eloquently, i'm not very good with words

>>6550493
Personally, I think it's structure is very complex. As a system, it is just a bunch of rock sitting around doing nothing, but imagine trying to recreate it's structure exactly. With the picture of the mandlebrot set, you can write a program that recreates it exactly, because it's just a visualization of an equation.

But how would you describe the structure of the grand canyon? All it's turns, walls, and slopes, the formations that are part of it. You could map it out and record all the positions, but could you simplify the grand canyon to a simple system or set of rules and then recreate it from those rules? I guess what I'm trying to say is how much could you simplify it without losing necessary information about it's structure.

And as for coming up with a definition of complexity, wikipedia has a little bit of light reading on complex systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems_theory

>>6550524
Also what wikipedia has to say about complexity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

>>6550524
All the formations could be simplified into planes, angles, curves etc. You'd have a very large set of equations, but each would itself be simple.

However, the equations for the flow of water that shaped the canyon would be less in quantity but far more complex.

I think this case is somewhat similar to >>6550474 in that its just a large amount of data but being simple at its core.

>>6550572
Then it just goes back to how we define complexity. Much of a living organism can be simplified to concentration gradients and differences in charges and polarity. It's how it all works together that gives it complexity.

We also run into the problem of the complexity of living organisms relative to each other. A blue whale has many more individual parts than we do, simply because of its sheer size, but could we say it is more complex than we are?

>>6550588
I guess in living organisms it comes down to the fact that organisms actually start 'living'. That a combination of mere molecules and their interactions result in something as complex as intelligence.

We can't explain human behavior through concentration gradients and the like, right?

>>6550600
>We can't explain human behavior through concentration gradients and the like, right?
Of course we can, at least in theory, in practice we haven't studied it enough but there is nothing magical about it it all simplifies into chemical reactions and physics in the end.

>>6550622
I guess it all boils down to arguing about 'free will'...

>>6550600
Not at this point, we can't explain it. There are things we observe, like the release and uptake of certain neurotransmitters in response to stimuli, but we haven't been able to tie it all together yet. I believe the movement of neurotransmitters generally follows concentration gradients, but my knowledge of neuroscience is fairly limited. The fact that we still don't understand how intelligence comes to be is a testament to the complexity of intelligence, but there are also other things we can't yet explain.

We have theories about why galaxies seem to have more mass than we observe, about what actually happens inside of black holes, and about why gravity actually happens, but we don't really know the answers.

Personally, I believe that eventually we will have an understanding of how intelligence comes to be, but we are also not the only creators in the universe. The earth by itself was full of complex organisms and structures before we came along, created by unintelligent processes.

>>6550630
No it doesn't no idea why you even try to bring that up.

>>6550622
So in the end, the complexity would be basically due to the sheer number of equations and inter connectivity.

How about variables? The more the variables, the more complex the system.

The Grand Canyon doesn't really have that many variables; basic spatial dimensions and their arrangement, yielding a large number of possible outcomes, but its just a matter of arrangement.

The movement of fluids, however, involve more variables.

>>6550636
If you say that all human behavior can be explained with logic, someone will inevitably say something about free will/'qualia'

>>6550647
That was you.
Way to shitpost

>>6550634
>Personally, I believe that eventually we will have an understanding of how intelligence comes to be
Really? If we could understand it, we could, theoretically, create it. Personally, I don't think we could.

I'd definitely love to be around if and when we do, but I most likely won't be.

Are there any theories that try to explain it?

>>6550647
>>6550649
Can you guys just cut the crap about free will before it starts? We don't know how it works yet, there's no point arguing with no solid evidence to either side. Personally, I think we should look to physical processes first to explain it, as that's what we can see and observe now, but there isn't anything to contradict the other view either.

>>6550665
Would you like to go out sometime?

>>6550665
>We don't know how it works yet
Of course we know, only thing that is fuzzy is the definition.
You can just define it here and I can tell you if you have it or not, it's not magic.
Your opinions don't change how the brain works.

>>6550665
addendum: unless you guys have anything constructive to bring to the table.

Complexity is subjective. No point of arguing over it, unless you define it as the amount of components.

When people usually use the word "complex", they're using it for things that are hard to understand FOR THEM. That's why it's subjective.

>>6550677
If you know how free will comes about from the physical processes of the brain, then please tell me. Like I said before, I think that it free will and consciousness come from the interactions among neurons in the brain. I think that the fact that we can help depression with medication is enough evidence to prove it, but until we can completely alter someone's will or consciousness, or create one artificially, you're not going to be able to convince people who think otherwise.
I'd like to be able to have a nice rational conversation about free will and the like, but all it comes down to on here is everyone getting pissed at each other and shitting all over the threads.

>>6550711
And OP, if you are truly interested in complexity, I found this with a quick google search.

http://www.calresco.org/lucas/quantify.htm

Even if it doesn't answer your questions, it's an interesting little read, and helps answer some of how you would define complexity

>>6550711
I asked you to tell me the definition of free will. This doesn't relate to my post in any way.

>but until we can completely alter someone's will or consciousness, or create one artificially, you're not going to be able to convince people who think otherwise.
You don't try to convince anyone in science, those people are unimportant.

Again just define it and it's easy to say if you have it or not. Else you can just stop posting.

>>6550719
If you really want to know my definition of free will, then I'll give it to you.

Starting off, every choice we make happens as a process in our brain, the firing of neurons as a process of thought. The connections in our brain are shaped partly from genetics, and mostly from experiences we have had. We do something that hurts, generally we don't want to do it again. Therefore every choice we make is affected by past actions and experiences. Because of how your brain is wired, you make a certain choice, there is nothing free about it. In order to have a truly free will, it would have to be independent of any outside factors, while instead it is dependent on our minds. I don't believe we have free will in that sense.

There's a simplicity in our complexity, however. Deep down, everything and anything is made of the same subatomic particles, which are the same as one another in a perfect identical fashion. This to me suggests no creator, but an eventual buildup of simplicity to make complexity. Gibb's free energy and entropy laws support this

>>6550746
Yes pretty simple. Then what the fuck was
>We don't know how it works yet
When you define and immediately dismiss it.
Why then shitpost? You people sicken me.

>>6550756
The shitpost was trying to prevent a whole bunch of other shitposting of people saying that free will is a thing, and then saying it's due to quantum fluctuations in the macroscopic system that is the brain, or due to our brain picking up some "consciousness waves" from the universe.

The same people that believe that stuff will take any uncertainty researchers have in how the brain's processes lead to consciousness and run with it, spewing that shit from before all the way.

When that happens in a thread it goes to hell, and I was trying to prevent that from happening in a thread where it is, at best, vaguely related to the topic at hand.

>>6550777
Did you consider that so far only people who even mentioned freewill in this thread were 2 guys who did it because "others would" or to "prevent others from posting about it" and me calling you out from your bullshit. I mean you have literally used the word most in this thread.

Have you considered that you are in fact the shitposter who brings up free will at every thread. Hint you are the shitposter that you are trying to inhibit. Like maybe if you didn't bring it up to be "ironic" or "meta" or what ever maybe no one would.
I repeat you people sicken me.

>>6550799
I didn't even want to talk about it, I was enjoying discussing complexity with OP when those 2 guys started talking about free will when OP was talking about intelligence. I told them to cut the crap about it, hoping it would die, and then you kept on going at me about it. I did not bring up free will in this thread, I wanted it to have no place in this thread.

>>6550824
>I hope no one talks about X
>better talk about X
>gets called out from it
>muh I didn't even want to talk about it
Are you autistic?
Not only did you start talking about it when the word was used literally once before you were also horribly wrong and sowing misinformation.
Not sure why you are trying to blame me when you start it and I just call you out from your total bullshit claims.
This is /sci/ you can't just expect to spout bullshit and think people let you go from it.
Do you even realize how fucking stupid all that is? Literally retard level stuff right there.
Report and hide instead of shitposting next time.
Like if you absolutely can't resists shitposting here's what you should have said:
>>>6550647
>>>6550649 (You)
>Can you guys just cut the crap about free will before it starts?
But noooo, better "not talk about it" by starting to talk about it.

>>6550842
I didn't bring the shit up. My response to it was to tell them to shut up about it, and I gave my reasoning why. We have a rudimentary understanding of consciousness, so there is no point arguing about anything more than what we already know.

There was no misinformation there. If you know the exact means by which consciousness arises from the physical processes in the brain, then show me. If all you can say is that it comes from the processes of our brain, then what I originally said is still valid, we know next to nothing about how consciousness actually comes about, and arguing about it is pointless.

That was all I said here, excuse me if I like to let people know my reasoning behind why they should stop. >>6550665

Show me the ways of my disinformation, show me that we know how consciousness works and that what I said was bullshit

>>6550904
And let me remind what was said
>"I guess it all boils down to arguing about 'free will'..."
>"why"
>"because people will post about i"
>"you just did stop shitposting"
and then you come in with:
>Can you guys just cut the crap about free will before it starts?
and follow by starting to discuss it with this:
> We don't know how it works yet, there's no point arguing with no solid evidence to either side. Personally, I think we should look to physical processes first to explain it, as that's what we can see and observe now, but there isn't anything to contradict the other view either.
Consisting of bullshit claim and your personal opinions about it.
If that is not starting to discuss i'm m00t.


>Show me the ways of my disinformation
>Can you guys just cut the crap about free will before it starts? We don't know how it works yet, there's no point arguing with no solid evidence to either side.
You said we don't know how free will works and that there "is no solid evidence on either side"
I told you to define it and surprise surprise it was easily decided if there was free will or not.
I mean come on literally the first thing you say in your post.

And now you start to bring up consciousness too despite the discussion being about free will.
I see now that you are in fact just shitposting.

Like are you truly this autistic?
Just stop posting jesus, you are just digging yourself deeper with every retarded post.

>>6550925
> We don't know how it works yet, there's no point arguing with no solid evidence to either side. Personally, I think we should look to physical processes first to explain it, as that's what we can see and observe now, but there isn't anything to contradict the other view either.

This is not starting a discussion, this is a statement that there is no material to have a meaningful discussion on. My "bullshit claim" was that I have views, other people have views, and there is not enough scientific about the information to have a meaningful discussion.

I told you my definition of free will, and I gave my logic for why it doesn't exist. Logic does not equal evidence, and without evidence it's just a load of philosophical bullshit.

Since this is a board on science and not philosophy, this >>6550746
is not evidence for anything or how anything works. I can bring no experiments or data to back it up, so it is not a scientific statement. The reason I brought up consciousness is because people link it with free will, and unlike free will, consciousness is something that can be talked about scientifically instead of just philosophically.

>"I guess it all boils down to arguing about 'free will'..."
>"why"
>"because people will post about i"
>"you just did stop shitposting"
>Can you guys just cut the crap about free will before it starts?

I did not want to wait around and see whether or not that would turn into an argument about free will.

If it's so damn easy to decide whether there's free will or not, why do entire threads get filled with arguments of whether or not there is free will, with no progress made the entire thread? It's not because half of the board is filled with people who do nothing but shitpost. There is not enough scientific evidence to decide either way, and just because my philosophical views line up with yours does not say anything at all about free will unless there is solid evidence.

>>6550307
There is no rule relating the complexity of the creator to the complexity of the creation. Literally. That's it. Thread over

>>6550999
>I did not want to wait around and see whether or not that would turn into an argument about free will.
Yea because you directly started it yourself

>why do entire threads get filled with arguments
see:
>>6550799
tldr because you exist.


Nice shitposting

>>6551020
So I started an argument about free will by saying that there is no point in arguing about free will?

Are you sure you're not the autistic one here?

>>6551056
Yes and then starting to make claims about it and presenting your own opinions and generally keeping on posting about it.
You know you don't have to post and that is pretty crucial definition of not wanting to post.
But hey EPIC shitposting. :^) XDDDXDDD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>>6551061
Like I said before, my statement was that I've got views on it, other people have views on it, and there's not point in starting an argument. The only thing I kept posting on it was in response to you, since you seemed to have a problem with my statement that there's no point in arguing about it because there's no conclusive scientific data about it, and that the argument boils down to philosophy instead of science.

But hey, if you pick a phrase out of my post and can't comprehend what I meant with the whole post, at least you're as big a shitposter as I am.
XDDDXDDXP

>>6551084
>I don't want to post :(
>Post 10 post
>Mean guys from internet is forcing me to post :'(
Epick, simply epick