'Fine tuning' the universe...

[saac]

57 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Ok, so I might be coming from totally different perspective into this and this might be a problem - but I'll explain the way I see it.

Computer neural networks are based on actual thing, so we can say that they are abstraction mimicking the real thing to a degree. Maybe not all the intricacies but if something holds for artificial neural networks - I think it will hold for real brain as well - at least things that I will mention.

If we take a neural network and break connection between neurons A and B -  neural network will start giving different output for the same input even if what the network "has learned" is the same. We can see this in serious injury to the brain where individuals must re learn certain skills - like learning to talk / walk and so on again (these are extreme cases).

This is what I mean by wiring of the brain. As far as I can tell (but I'm not 100% certain on this) - pathways or connections between neurons form in early age and part of learning. This is different from artificial neural networks which are mostly "fixed" - e.i. count of neurons and their connections remains the same ("no rewiring").

Given above and from the fact that we all have different DNA - it is very sensible to assume that:

a) two individuals might not have same number of neurons

b) two individuals might not have same number of connections or differently arranged connections between existing neurons

Now, it is possible for two networks with different architectures to be trained the same and to roughly have the same response - but it will never be exactly the same.

From this it is easy to see that even if we have very similar / "the same" structure of eyeball, photosensitive area, optical nerve and so on and we get the same electrical impulse to the brain - first neural network / processing center will be different because it will likely have:

a) different number of neurons

b) with different connections

c) and different training

Ok - so this is very hard to explain - and for precisely that reason it is hard to establish if we have the same perception or not.

Let's try with green: there is nothing in physical phenomena of color that is green. Green does not exist in physical world - it is our sensation. It is sort of a feeling in our brain that we get when we see object or light that is green.

People that have suffered some severe trauma sometimes smell colors.

Their brain is rewired differently in such way that when they see green for example - they "smell" or have sensation or feeling inside of their brain of some smell. By the way - smell is also very similar to color - in the sense that we have this perception in our brain of something - and as we have seen this perception is triggered by certain signal from processing center of our sense (which can get mixed up).

That is what I mean by perception - thing that happens in my consciousness when green light triggers my sensory system - a feeling.

There is simply no way of telling if I have same green feeling as someone else.

Maybe my green feels like your roasted pork (either smell or taste) - but we would never know that because all we have in order to communicate that to one another is just comparison between physical stimuli and corresponding feeling that each one has but can't express.

 

Lol I just wrote out a lengthy response, took a few moments, and then the darn thing blue screened on me (my idea of blue anyway - feels like a fish on a bicycle)  

Ok I think we share an agreement on some things but also still a gap on others (probably due to my pedantic take on things). 

I disagree on your take on the existence of green. Yes it is a label but it is a label with definition, we assign it to a particular bandwidth of the visible spectrum with a peak wavelength of around 532 nm. We can measure it, detect its presence, discern and separate it from other wavelengths.  It certainly exists, no less than UV (A), UV (B), HF, VHF, IR, or microwaves exist. Can I describe the sensation I experience in my brain (most likely consciousness) when I see green, no I  cannot. But that does not preclude a shared, common response.

If the experience of sight is in the consciousness (almost certainly) then that is an unknown country. Analogous to the BIg Bang, where we have no physics to describe the "before",  our consciousness is beyond our understanding. However, it is a big leap to then say, my experience of green is different from yours!  That is too easy a statement to make, requires no effort, is unsupported and cannot be tested. We can equally say our experiences are identical. I may even be inclined to put greater faith in the later given the shared physicality we have discussed previously (biochemistry, structure etc). 

Re our different DNA and the potential for that to give rise to individual experience. Our DNA is in reality 99.9 % identical, the 0.1 % providing enough variation to yield diversity (for health) and produce mutation expressed and unexpressed.   So if I were to take a considered view, given the common physical structure and biochemistry we discussed previously, I would still argue that, on the balance of probability, we do have the same experience. I accept that this position is untestable. 

Wow - people of SGL, you have no idea how lucky you are! My pre blue screen reply (may have been yellowish, or purple with hints of caramel and pine nuts) was even longer and tortuous than this one  

Jim 

[markse68]

I don't think there will ever be such a paper Oli, nor is really important- just an interesting thing to think about. Does our subconscious see colour? Or is it only our conscious reconstruction of the outside world that uses colour to differentiate and identify objects in our simplified version? And our senses are so easily fooled

[saac]

1 hour ago, Ratlet said:

I thought we figured out green a long time ago.

I seem to recall a documentary on the BBC in the 80's about an English courtier in Elizabethan times who created a sample of purest green.  I think he was trying to make gold, but his plan wasn't cunning enough...

And the prize for the thread post goes to Ratlet. Excellent, well done sir  

Let's post the clip up at the end  when this has run its race, - just to explain to those who maybe were not fans.

Jim  

[vlaiv]

7 minutes ago, saac said:

However, it is a big leap to then say, my experience of green is different from yours!  That is too easy a statement to make, requires no effort, is unsupported and cannot be tested. We can equally say our experiences are identical. I may even be inclined to put greater faith in the later given the shared physicality we have discussed previously (biochemistry, structure etc). 

For one - I'm not claiming that it is different - but to me, it certainly is plausible that it is different.

Here is one thing that I've noticed people differ in. Some people are quite capable of abstract thought while others are not so.

Last night I was discussing existence with a friend over a pint (as you do) and we came to the conclusion that he has real difficulty imaging nothingness - in general sense - like when you start to build imaginary universe and wonder at what point you can say that there is existence.

That is highly abstract notion and I understand that he has difficulty grasping it. I've also noticed that some people have difficulty with abstractions in mathematics or in general. This ought to show us that we don't have as similar consciousness as we might think at first.

Here is another example. When I was in high school sometimes I played "mental chess" with a friend of mine on a way back from school. He was truly gifted chess player (not sure if he is still active chess player) and he had no trouble playing prolonged matches whilst keeping complete board and situation in his head. I really struggled to do so - although I'm quite good at visualizing things in my mind. I could never have "current" state of board in my mind - but had to resort to tricks like keeping list of last moves and checking next moves against that or whatever - and I often made mistakes.

[saac]

31 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

So... I realize that it's possible that nobody has proven that our sensory experiences are the same.  However, I also know that there are countless examples of shared responses to shared sensory experiences. Certain colours clash. Having your fingernails torn out is horrible. Middle C played where it wasn't meant to be will sound wrong. 'Out of tune' makes sense. Chocolate and onions don't go together. This list could run to millions of examples.  Are we to believe, therefore, that by some remarkable conincidence, the relationships between these non-shared experiences are consistently unaffected by their not being common? Yes, you can argue this but - be honest - are you not flying a kite in doing so? Does it not make a lot more sense to suppose that, in our genetically similar bodies, we have highly comparable responses to identical outside stimulii?

Test yourself. A peer reviewed paper is set to appear, saying that it contains a clear answer as to whether or not your red is more or less someone else's red. You have a chance to place a bit on the outcome. Do you really bet on the the side that says we all have significantly different reds? I don't believe you will and I do believe that, if you do, I will take your money.

Olly

You will need to get in the cue Olly, I just staked my retirement fund against it.

Jim 

[saac]

22 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

For one - I'm not claiming that it is different - but to me, it certainly is plausible that it is different.

Here is one thing that I've noticed people differ in. Some people are quite capable of abstract thought while others are not so.

Last night I was discussing existence with a friend over a pint (as you do) and we came to the conclusion that he has real difficulty imaging nothingness - in general sense - like when you start to build imaginary universe and wonder at what point you can say that there is existence.

That is highly abstract notion and I understand that he has difficulty grasping it. I've also noticed that some people have difficulty with abstractions in mathematics or in general. This ought to show us that we don't have as similar consciousness as we might think at first.

Here is another example. When I was in high school sometimes I played "mental chess" with a friend of mine on a way back from school. He was truly gifted chess player (not sure if he is still active chess player) and he had no trouble playing prolonged matches whilst keeping complete board and situation in his head. I really struggled to do so - although I'm quite good at visualizing things in my mind. I could never have "current" state of board in my mind - but had to resort to tricks like keeping list of last moves and checking next moves against that or whatever - and I often made mistakes.

I totally agree, abstraction is a skill, some people have it some do not. Same as critical thinking, empathetic, concrete thinking, musicality. I wonder if these are all the result of particular gene expressions.  We can see that certain professions almost demand these as core skills (abstraction - engineering for example). Closer to home on abstraction, there is nothing more soul destroying when teaching when a pupil won't move beyond "I don't get it". 

Jim 

Edited March 4, 2023 by saac

[Moonshed]

32 minutes ago, saac said:

Does it not make a lot more sense to suppose that, in our genetically similar bodies, we have highly comparable responses to identical outside stimulii?

I’m not so sure.

My brain receives input from the world around me via my senses. Your brain receives input from the world around you via your senses. My brain is not physically the same as your brain anymore than my fingerprints are not the same as your fingerprints. Why then should we assume our brains perceive the world in the same way? Why should we assume our senses detect stimuli to the same degree as each other and send the same information to our brains that processes it the exact same way and results in us having the exact same perception?
For example, I love the flavour of a single malt whiskey yet my brother hates it. I hate the sound of trad jazz but my daughter loves it. I can’t play any musical instruments, my uncle was great on the piano. Why are we different? I don’t know, I only know that we are. We all accept we are different physically, academically and in our taste of the arts, food and fashion, so why is there a problem accepting that our perceptions are different? Each individual has their own perception of the world, there is no right or wrong perception any more than there is a right or wrong appreciation of music.






 

Sent from my iPad

[saac]

22 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

I’m not so sure.

My brain receives input from the world around me via my senses. Your brain receives input from the world around you via your senses. My brain is not physically the same as your brain anymore than my fingerprints are not the same as your fingerprints. Why then should we assume our brains perceive the world in the same way? Why should we assume our senses detect stimuli to the same degree as each other and send the same information to our brains that processes it the exact same way and results in us having the exact same perception?
For example, I love the flavour of a single malt whiskey yet my brother hates it. I hate the sound of trad jazz but my daughter loves it. I can’t play any musical instruments, my uncle was great on the piano. Why are we different? I don’t know, I only know that we are. We all accept we are different physically, academically and in our taste of the arts, food and fashion, so why is there a problem accepting that our perceptions are different? Each individual has their own perception of the world, there is no right or wrong perception any more than there is a right or wrong appreciation of music.






 

Sent from my iPad

I'm guessing we have enough information from medical science which points to the similarities. Remembering that the physical processes within the brain are defined by a common DNA and regulated by common biochemistry. 

I've already said that I accept that we may "perceive" differently in our consciousness.  I also accept that we may not and that our experiences are actually the same.   The position is indeterminable.

On the balance of probability, I would put money down on the latter given the degree of commonality our brains share.  

Jim 

Edited March 4, 2023 by saac

[Moonshed]

1 minute ago, saac said:

On the balance of probability, I would put money down on the latter given the degree of commonality our brains share.  

I am happy to bet against you, not that it matters, because as you say the position is indeterminable. That being the case then neither one of us claim to win the bet so instead why don’t we both donate a few shekels to a worthy cause. I’m going to give a fiver to the first rough sleeper I see tomorrow. 

[andrew s]

I think we must have a common or at least very similar perception in that our mental models of the world are congruent.  If not then how do we communicate and create our rich culture and technology. 

When misaligned we identify mental illnesses and pathological behaviour. 

What astonishes me is our lack of access, via introspection,  to our metal processes. Maybe it has to be like that for our sanity. 

Regards Andrew 

[markse68]

it's interesting and convenient that we only can sense 1 octave of visible light isn't it. Would get quite confusing if it were more. When I look at a deep red led like those new tail lights on posh cars, I see a bit of blueness to the red

Mark

[EarthLife]

39 minutes ago, markse68 said:

it's interesting and convenient that we only can sense 1 octave of visible light isn't it. Would get quite confusing if it were more. When I look at a deep red led like those new tail lights on posh cars, I see a bit of blueness to the red

Mark

When you look at the spectral curve of light that rains down through our atmosphere from our cosy star, it kind of lines up with the spectral curve of our eye sight, I highly suspect our eyes evolved to only detect what light is available in plentiful supply.

Any alien life forms wizzing around the other stars out there would I guess have eye sights with a spectral response that matches up with the available light coming from there own suns that make it through their particular atmospheres. This could mean that the little aliens would most likely have IR vision if their sun is a red dwarf, etc.

Life is extremely clever, and extremely resourceful !  a mystery for sure.

Edited March 4, 2023 by EarthLife

[markse68]

You edited your post before I could find the Carl Sagan quote

"I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

Mark

[EarthLife]

10 minutes ago, markse68 said:

You edited your post before I could find the Carl Sagan quote

"I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

oh sorry, I thought I'd remove the last bit I wrote as didn't really want to go down that route.

I liked Carl enormously !!  we need more like him.

Edited March 4, 2023 by EarthLife

[Gfamily]

1 hour ago, EarthLife said:

When you look at the spectral curve of light that rains down through our atmosphere from our cosy star, it kind of lines up with the spectral curve of our eye sight, I highly suspect our eyes evolved to only detect what light is available in plentiful supply.

Any alien life forms wizzing around the other stars out there would I guess have eye sights with a spectral response that matches up with the available light coming from there own suns that make it through their particular atmospheres. This could mean that the little aliens would most likely have IR vision if their sun is a red dwarf, etc.

Life is extremely clever, and extremely resourceful !  a mystery for sure.

To be fair, we have a narrower spectral response than other species - snakes have IR detectors that they use for prey detection, and some insects have sensitivity well into the near UV, which many flowers 'use' to lead insects to their pollen/nectar. 

On the other hand; as primates, we seem to have a wider spectral discrimination than other mammals, who often seem to have a reduced capacity for colour vision.

To modify your quote - Life is clever at using the resources it needs! 

[Paul M]

One of my oldest thought experiments, and one for which I have no experimental evidence:

So I sit in a dark room and then a screen before my eyes is illuminated with pure green. My visual cortex is bathed with the signal of pure green retinal stimulus. If then that part of my visual cortex was mapped/copied/downloaded or facsimiled by whatever means and transplanted into the visual cortex of another individual, would that person even perceive colour, let alone green? 

I belief that they wouldn't. My perception is built on neuron paths built as a newborn and onward. I suspect those paths are as individual as fingerprints but a million? Billion? Trillion times more convoluted.

My infant brain easily recocnised the difference between optical stimuli but how they were/are mapped must surely be indivdual?

[VNA]

3 hours ago, EarthLife said:

Life is extremely clever, and extremely resourceful !  a mystery for sure.

 

Hello, it is nothing else than an accident--nothing else.

[saac]

6 hours ago, VNA said:

 

Hello, it is nothing else than an accident--nothing else.

Sort of but more the process of natural selection repeating what had a favourable outcome and dropping the variation that had no favourable outcome.  In the evolution of human sight there simply was no favourable advantage to photoreceptors capable of detecting outwith our present spectral range.  If there ever was such mutations, and assuming those provided a favourable outcome, the genes for such would continue to be expressed in our DNA. 

Jim

[saac]

9 hours ago, Paul M said:

My infant brain easily recocnised the difference between optical stimuli but how they were/are mapped must surely be indivdual?

Why, was it not inherited, encoded in the DNA? Where does the information to instruct the structure in our bodies to form in a particular way arise, where is that information held? For example in the development of the heart in the embryo, what forces are in play that guide the stem cells to their physical position to form part of the left ventricle rather than a valve in the right atrium? Each stem cell started out with the same potential.  The map is the DNA, it directs the cells to express particular proteins which provide the destination, shape, form and function. This is the same for every organ in the body and, baring mutation, the same for every individual, it is not random.

When we look at a spiral Galaxy we compare it to another we will notice certain areas of individual patterns but the global structure follows a common pattern. The two Galaxies are shaped by the same fundamental forces and are subject to behave accordingly, neither has any exemption. This is why we see pattern in the large scale structure in the universe.  I am sure that the physical response in the brain to external stimuli, just as with every other organ in the body, is a shared common experience, it is in effect hardwired.  What happens in the realm of thought is less clear, and maybe it's here that my green is your blue takes place, if it ever does. I may be wrong but the processes of the brain that contain consciousness (though, mind) are far beyond present scientific understanding.

We already have glimpses through neuroscience and psychology that our perception of free will may not be all it seems, that even there we have an underlying order.  Who knows? We could speculate anything happens in there, but as Andrew suggested earlier, I think there we would tread a knife edge between sanity and insanity; I have an image akin to a Dali painting  

Here's my green as formed somewhere in my mind

Edited March 5, 2023 by saac

[ollypenrice]

I'm lathered up and about to use Occam's razor. We have sensory experiences of sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. In all of these, there are things we find harmonious and things we find incompatible. This sound does not belong with that sound in music. This colour does not go with that in painting. This taste and that taste need to be at opposite ends of the meal. And so on and on. There is very high (though not perfect) agreement on these relationships. Now we are asked to believe that this agreement on harmony is sustained even though the primary experience of each colour, taste, etc is entirely variable from person to person. My razor says, 'No.'

13 hours ago, markse68 said:

I don't think there will ever be such a paper Oli, nor is really important- just an interesting thing to think about. Does our subconscious see colour? Or is it only our conscious reconstruction of the outside world that uses colour to differentiate and identify objects in our simplified version? And our senses are so easily fooled

This image would not work unless we had a high degree of concordance in our perception. It does not offer proof of common experience but it fits into my argument above.

As for the subconscious - I do not regard its existence as proven. (Another matter.)

Olly

[saac]

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

As for the subconscious - I do not regard its existence as proven. (Another matter.)

Olly

Indeed, it is regarded as pseudo science in some areas of psychology but there is some acceptance of a form of hidden transaction or exchanges with the rational or what we would casually call the real mind.  I would like to know though at what point in the chain does the electrical impulse or chemical signature become thought and what physical nature does that thought hold. 

Jim

Edited March 5, 2023 by saac

[Macavity]

I think there is a certain "circularity" to the arguments. The atomic (molecular) force that governs
the emission of light from molecules (atoms) is also responsible for the "Chemistry" that created
We Observers. (Completely) Random (Darwinian) selection is constrained by the "Physics" of it. 😛

Personally, I favour "complete chance" in such things. I sense otherwise, there are vested interests.
Recent observation includes "grant allocations", Patreon funding, or simply number of followers!
I fear scientists can fall into a certain narcissism. Are we "Guardians of the Universe"? I sense not.
Do I think I can shed MORE light than:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe? No! 😁

*The Internet* allows a whole host of non-scientists to participate in such debate. [teasing] 😛
It genuinely surprises, many, who often cannot understand "standard" Science (me too?)
see themselves as an authority on these *most complex* areas of abstract thinking...


 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Macavity

[ollypenrice]

13 minutes ago, Macavity said:

I think there is a certain "circularity" to the arguments. The molecular (atomic) force that govern
the emission of light from molecules (atoms) is also responsible for the "Chemistry" that created
We Observers. (Completely) Random (Darwinian) selection is constrained by the "Physics" of it. 😛

Personally, I favour "complete chance" in such things. I sense otherwise, there are vested interests.
Recent observation includes "grant allocations", Patreon funding, or simply number of followers!
I fear scientists can fall into a certain narcissism. Are we "Guardians of the Universe"? I sense not.
Do I think I can shed MORE light than:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe? No! 😁

*The Internet* allows a whole host of non-scientist types to "debate" such things. [teasing] 😛
It genuinely surprises, many who often cannot understand bog-standard Science (me too?)
see themselves as an authority on these most *complex* areas of thinking...


 

The Wiki article offers a good overview of the parameters which need to be as they are for life to form. Where it is less successful is in distinguishing between 'being as they are' and 'being fine tuned to be as they are.' There is an enormous difference between the two, that difference being at the origin of this thread.  The key question for me is, 'Is it valid to be surprised that they are as they are?'  Would we not be a sight more surprised if we found that the physical parameters gave clear proof that we do not exist?' 

As ever, the structure of language pushes our thinking in an anthropomorphic direction. Verbs have subjects. 'To fine tune' must have a finer tuner of some kind. When we can't identify one we sense a void and want to fill it. Perhaps we shouldn't?

Olly

[Alien 13]

I remember shortly after my stroke many years ago that I began to smell colours which lasted for a few years and have wondered if for example an Alien species that processed the EM spectrum as sound or scent etc could develop a greater understanding of the Universe or Math's than us or is visualization on a PC screen or book the only way.. So complex math's without numbers or symbols.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Alien 13

[markse68]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

As for the subconscious - I do not regard its existence as proven. (Another matter.)

it’s commonly stated that our conscious mind utilises about 5% of our neural activity. That leaves 95% of brain activity that we are not conscious of. It’s a complex machine to keep functioning so a lot of it will be reactive control circuitry and memory storage. I regularly have “thoughts” and memories pop into my conscious mind as if from nowhere- pretty sure there is stuff going on back there without me “knowing”

An example would be learned skills that become intuitive like hitting a tennis ball with a racquet. Hours of practice hard code the process into the subconscious brain so that a skilled player can react accurately in a split second- far faster than the conscious mind could react. Before that training has worked its magic we rely on our conscious mind and are clumsy. I hate working while someone is watching me. I become clumsy and slow as the processes are brought into my conscious mind. When not being watched i think my actions become more subconscious and i can work efficiently.

Mark

Edited March 5, 2023 by markse68