Witholding My Ire

[trickykitty]

I'm reading The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics.

I just finished chapter 1 and want to rant at the author.

Concerning a human walking from one room into another:
"...are not one's atoms of one moment simply providing the information for the locations of the atoms of the next moment?...Does not any moving pattern of atoms simply constitute a kind of wave of information propagating from one place to another?"

My Answer: No. No they are fucking NOT sharing information. Your electrons are not 'talking' to the local electrons. They are not having some sort of general meeting to 'decide' if they will move this way or that. They are not beaming info back and fourth and 'agreeing' to move. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

What pisses me off the most....this guy is a computational physicist. A well-known one.

And now I have no idea if I will be able to stomach the remaining 9 chapters of this book. I most definitely have started off reading with a critical eye to the AI implications and assumptions as I do with any AI book, but the fact that I will have to also do so with the physics presented is going chap my ass to no end.

Yes, I just said 'chap my ass'. Pardon my country colloquialism, but apparently I'm supposed to be a dumb hick in order to read this book and still be able to overlook the obvious WRONG that I see in it.

Comments

[txtriffidranch.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the joys of most popular science books aimed at a general audience. I learned a long time ago that having expertise in one field does not impart expertise in writing, and the more of a recognized expert in one highly specialized field, the more likely the expert's proclamations outside of that highly specialized field are full of shit.

[whisperer12.livejournal.com]

While you might be in the camp that feels happiest with a world in which consciousness is just a fluke that you cannot explain, there are quite a few respected physicists who interpret things in a manner which puts consciousness at the root of things. After all, matter is much easier to explain as a function of consciousness than is mind as a function of matter. Occam's razor, anyone?

[trickykitty.livejournal.com]

I am not in the camp that believes consciousness is just a fluke that cannot be explained. In fact, I am in the complete opposite. I believe that 'consciousness' is simply a result of the form and function of the brain as a whole. This is no different than saying that when wood appropriately shaped is combined with metal appropriately shaped and the whole assembly moved in a particular manner it results in 'hammering'. We don't say that a hammer magically hammers or that a TV magically is alive because it produces moving images and sound, and likewise I do not say that a brain magically thinks. I view consciousness, merely a definition of what the brain does, as an effect, not a cause. Because of this viewpoint, I whole-heartedly disagree with both those that think consciousness is unexplainable as well as those who believe that consciousness is at the root of all things. It is also why I believe it can be reproduced artificially, and hence the entire point of my studies. Saying that I side with either of the other two groups nullifies everything that I am working towards.

Does this mean that I am correct and that they are wrong? No, but it does explain why I might take offense if you try to categorize me with either group in the future.

[whisperer12.livejournal.com]

Please forgive my indelicate use of terms. I am aware that you think that mind is a function of matter and that somehow the brain manifests consciousness. You just can't explain how it is that inert stuff manifests the wholly unique mental realm. Nor can you explain what a mathematical truth is using your physics. Nor can anyone else despite their best efforts. It is a much more elegant solution to postulate consciousness as an inherent trait of energy (whether particle or wave) and matter simply as a function of that consciousness experiencing itself. Now, I can no more "prove" to you my position than you can "prove" yours. Yet to be indignant that someone whom has taken the time and effort to write a book chooses a different interpretation of the data resulting from our experience with quantum physics is to assume that your position is the correct one despite an inability to show it as such.