multi-dimensional physics thread (for Gisteron) ;-)

More
04 Feb 2020 16:07 #349400 by Fyxe

Gisteron wrote: quote]What's the "BAM!" here? Read carefully. I said that ideas correspond to, not are, and chemical conditions (I also used "processes" just a line later in that same post you quote from, and "states" one message later), not chemicals. Pay attention. Most times I choose my words with care, precisely to not be saying such silly things as that thoughts were chemicals. So I feel no obligation defending a position I never made a claim to. That's why I move on.


No you move on because you get defeated on a point but instead of acknowledging it you ignore it. The BAM is just what it means… BAM! Corresponds or processes, it don’t matter, you still said that you could get an image from chemicals in the brain. I looked at your little experiements below and it says nothing about chemicals in the brain. It says activity in the brain and they are even feeding the human the exact picture they want to see. But guess what, all that comes out the other side is a blob not a picture of anything you can tell what it is. Not very impressive. Heck I can do that with some crayons and paper and I don’t even need a big fancy computer.

I want you to prove that you can take a human off the street and open up his head or something and without the human telling anyone what hes thinking have the scientist be able to do his whatever he does and then pull out of the humans head the exact image or idea hes thinking about just from the chemicals there. That’s what you said we could do so that’s what I want to see. So how about that 6 winged plane image? Where is it? Save your bow until you provide exactly what I asked for just like you keep demanding of me with these non existent questions you keep going on about.

Sorry but I cant answer something that does not exist and if you cant even be bothered to point them out to me well I guess that ends that part of the discussion. Hows that for minimal effort bucko? You get what you ask for.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 16:24 #349402 by Gisteron

Fyxe wrote: No you move on because you get defeated on a point but instead of acknowledging it you ignore it. The BAM is just what it means… BAM! Corresponds or processes, it don’t matter, you still said that you could get an image from chemicals in the brain.

But it does matter. I say what I say the way I say it because that is (almost always) the way I mean it. You can go on twisting words in my mouth, but at the end of the day, what I said and how I said it was on record, and I went out of my way to explain how and why what I said was different from what you claim I said. You are the one who is ignoring the actual argument in a desperate pursuit of some cheap victory, as if this was any kind of competition. I have made myself clear. If you need to keep lying about it, so be it.


I looked at your little experiements below and it says nothing about chemicals in the brain. It says activity in the brain...

So... pretty much exactly what I claimed, too? You are saying the experiment confirms what I said? Glad we can agree.


But guess what, all that comes out the other side is a blob not a picture of anything you can tell what it is.

So... pretty much exactly what I claimed, too? You are saying the experiments confirm what I said? Great! Glad we can agree.


Not very impressive. Heck I can do that with some crayons and paper and I don’t even need a big fancy computer.

You probably can paint weird pictures, I'm sure of it. The reason they showed the subjects images was so that they could confirm that the computer's output was precisely not just random crayon paintings, but actually had some semblance to what would have been on the subjects' minds. There is no neurological reason this wouldn't work for completely imagined visualizations on the subjects' part, this just happens to be the only sort of experiment where the comparison between the image the subject sees and what the computer reconstructs from their brain activity is at all possible. Something that should not be possible, were thoughts entirely non-physical like you say.


I want you to prove that you can take a human off the street and open up his head or something and without the human telling anyone what hes thinking have the scientist be able to do his whatever he does and then pull out of the humans head the exact image or idea hes thinking about just from the chemicals there. That’s what you said we could do so that’s what I want to see.

That is not what I said, and at this point you know that, too. I have no reason entertaining this line of discussion, because you keep lying after repeated corrections.


So how about that 6 winged plane image? Where is it? Save your bow until you provide exactly what I asked for just like you keep demanding of me with these non existent questions you keep going on about.

I have provided exactly what I claimed, nothing less. Your persistent lying about what I said does not oblige me to anything.


Sorry but I cant answer something that does not exist and if you cant even be bothered to point them out to me well I guess that ends that part of the discussion. Hows that for minimal effort bucko? You get what you ask for.

Well, no, I don't. I especially don't get the answers you promised repeatedly. But I am content nonetheless. I understand now that an honest and decent exchange was never your intent, and that is fair enough. Be well.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 16:38 #349406 by Fyxe
One reply to your silly assertion and those strange experiments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

oh and then there is this

Gisteron wrote: Meanwhile thoughts - and so stands to reason ideas, too - do correspond to chemical conditions in the brain



That is not what I said, and at this point you know that, too. I have no reason entertaining this line of discussion, because you keep lying after repeated corrections.


oh is that similar to how you keep lying that I claimed this was a physics thread even after multiple corrections by me? Karma is a bitch aint it.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 16:44 #349408 by Gisteron
Yep. Still "correspond", not "are" and still "chemical conditions", not "chemicals". I worded it like that on purpose. If you want to read it a different way, that's your choice. If you want to claim that I said it a different way, that'd be lying, and prepare to be called out on that.


So since you took the effort to go back to page 13, how about the questions I posed in the message immediately after the one you quote from? You know, the questions you claim I never posed? The ones Erinis tried to answer one of? Oh, what's that? Oh? Oh! Oh, it's almost like your assertion that I never posed them was a lie? *gasp* colour me shocked!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 16:58 #349409 by Fyxe
exactly, condition is the state of something and correspond is match or agree with. So you basically said that the state of the chemicals in a brain can be used to agree with the thought being thinked. so if your EXACT words that you carefully chose, you state that chemicals in the brain can be used to see what a person is thinking.

What questions were those exactly? I seem to be having trouble finding them. Can you point them out for me? If not I just dont believe I can come to accept they exist.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 17:14 - 04 Feb 2020 17:24 #349412 by Gisteron

Fyxe wrote: exactly, condition is the state of something and correspond is match or agree with. So you basically said that the state of the chemicals in a brain can be used to agree with the thought being thinked. so if your EXACT words that you carefully chose, you state that chemicals in the brain can be used to see what a person is thinking.

Yes. There is a match (not necessarily a perfect one, but a match nonetheless) between what a person thinks - say, the image they were instructed to think of - and the chemical state(s) of their brain. If it were not so, then analyzing someone's brain activity - i.e. chemical (and other) states and changes between them inside their brain - would give us no insight whatsoever into the thoughts they are having. If there was no correspondence, the images would not just look blurry, they would show absolutely no semblance to the images we expect the subjects were thinking of other than by sheer luck. That the computer can however reliably keep reconstructing images with recognizably matching colours and shapes from just the measurements it is fed, means that at least some part of the thinking that is responsible for creating the mental image is tied to the sort of activity of the brain we have tools to measure.

That is all I claimed and that is all the studies show. It doesn't mean that all thinking is entirely physical, it doesn't even mean that all thinking has a physical component. But there is some thinking that clearly has some correlation with physically measurable data, at least to the extent to which anything in nature can be said to "clearly" be the case.

Last edit: 04 Feb 2020 17:24 by Gisteron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 17:29 #349414 by Fyxe

Gisteron wrote: Yes. There is a match (not necessarily a perfect one, but a match nonetheless) between what a person thinks - say, the image they were instructed to think of - and the chemical state(s) of their brain.


See its not so hard to actually admit what you said now is it! And now saying that one cant see an image from the chemicals is good too. Instead you have to feed the person a specific picture and get a specific output. sounds like a computer to me not a revolutionary way to read minds. However the fact still remains that you cant pull an idea of of a persons head, there is no way to evaluate a thought that has never been thought before. this is nontangeable.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 17:52 #349417 by Gisteron

Fyxe wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Yes. There is a match (not necessarily a perfect one, but a match nonetheless) between what a person thinks - say, the image they were instructed to think of - and the chemical state(s) of their brain.


See its not so hard to actually admit what you said now is it!

For me it isn't. That's why I kept repeating what I said and how I said it, while you kept trying to twist it.


And now saying that one cant see an image from the chemicals is good too.

Yes, not from "chemicals", only from "chemical states". Exactly as I put it before, while you kept trying to twist that, too.


Instead you have to feed the person a specific picture and get a specific output.

No, that's not what the studies say. In fact, the 2019 study by Shen et al. states quite the opposite:

Shen et al. wrote: Here, we present a method for visual image reconstruction from the brain that can reveal both seen and imagined contents by capitalizing on multiple levels of visual cortical representations. (emphasis added)

Am I to believe that after I gave you the references you asked for, you... didn't even read them? Then what was the point?


However the fact still remains that you cant pull an idea of of a persons head, there is no way to evaluate a thought that has never been thought before. this is nontangeable.

Well... If you call it a fact, I could, too, ask to see some confirmation of this. But I'm willing to grant it to you without a reference all the same. The claim that one could pull out never-before-thought thoughts out of people's minds via technological mind-reading marvels was never one I made. All I maintain is that there is something physical in the brain that corresponds to thoughts, because that is what the evidence appears to indicate. That's the goal post I set myself and that's the one I met. Everything beyond that, for now, is beyond that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 18:20 #349420 by Fyxe
OK! now we are getting somewhere. You cant pull a 6 winged airplane out of a guys head by reading the chemicals and even the images fed in, by looking at them or imagining ones already fed are just blurry blobs that can easily be read as a pattern that does not actually exist objectively. Like that face on mars! is it a face? no just a mountain but people will still tell you its a face.

A true teacher would never tell you what to do. But he would give you the knowledge with which you could decide what would be best for you to do

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Feb 2020 18:54 - 04 Feb 2020 19:05 #349422 by Gisteron
Well, this would be a concern if the computer just spat out random images out of nowhere and the researchers ooh'd and aah'd at the patterns they saw within. But no. If you know what sort of image the subject saw, you can program a computer to analyze what portion of the output, as a fraction of the total, resembles the input and to what extent. You can generate compare unrelated images or random noise to see what measure of semblance would be completely incidental, and see if the semblance between input and brain scan image are more or less similar than would be accounted for by coincidence. You can measure not just that there is a significant match, but precisely how significant it is. And that's only after getting the computer to recognize image features in the first place, which is far from trivial in its own right. Sure, humans may see patterns where none exist, but computers by default can barely see (reliably, that is, dynamically detect, perhaps better put) even the most obvious of patterns.

This isn't a make stuff up and see how much of it ends up in a journal game, Fyxe. One can actually calculate the confidence with which any statement is fair to make. This stuff isn't just empty hand waving. Read the studies, before you dismiss them based on the title. Read about image processing and statistical analysis, before you proclaim that the methods employed were just some self serving hand waving people make up to feel self-important, or "weird scribbles on a paper" as you'd put it... There is a huge, huge world out there most of us are lucky to get to learn much of anything about, and none of us will die having learned anywhere near enough. Don't stop convinced you have it all figured out when you haven't even begun digging in...

Last edit: 04 Feb 2020 19:05 by Gisteron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick