Note: This may be observed as a continuation of my earlier thread (regarding entropy maximization and human purpose).
In that earlier thread, I explained how the creation of "Artificial General Intelligence" may be a reasonable human purpose/objective, instead of serving some deity.
- Anyway, here's another newish article by another author: Scientists Show Human Consciousness Could Be a Side Effect of 'Entropy'
- Paper in article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00821
The paper from the new article above says the more deep in sleep the mind, the lower the entropy.
The converse is true, the more awake the mind is, the higher the information content, the higher the amount of neuronal interactions, the higher the values of entropy.
The paper uses "Stirling Approximation" to compute some measure of entropy, "macrostate" C:
S = ( N ln(N/N − p) − p ln(p/N − p) ) ≡ lnC (Figure 1 Stirling approximation on human EEG data)
- I think it is reasonable to estimate that "C ∈ {X}", where "C "represents an ensemble or macrostate sequence about some distribution of entropy in human neuronal terms as underlined by Mateos et al in new article/paper above, while "{X}" (wrt equation 4 by Alex Wissner Gross) describes some macrostate partition that reasonably encompasses constrained path capability, that permits entropy maximization, as underlined by Dr. Alex Wissner Gross.
- Finally, beyond the scope of humans (as indicated by "C") one may additionally garner of some measure of "{X}" that may subsume higher degrees of entropy. (i.e. Artificial General Intelligence will likely have more brain power than humans, and hence a higher measure of "{X}" compared to humans.)
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319235750_Why_is_the_purpose_of...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Way, WAy, WAY above MY head!
It's so far above mine I think its a UFO!
@Old Man
Good thing you are wearing a helmet in case something falls off.
This is circular reasoning.
Why do you feel the OP is supposedly "circular reasoning"?
Note that the portion seen in the OP (before the source at the end of the OP) was recently added to source at the end of the OP.
How can you disprove the notion that higher entropy causes the conscious brain?
The paper by Mateos et al reasonably shows that the more conscious or awake the mind, the higher the values of entropy.
You have not demonstrated how you can say one causes the other. You seem to be giving the universe agency.
"that may subsume higher degrees of entropy"
What exactly is one degree of entropy?
I don't detect the relevance of your question above.
You reference degrees of entropy in the OP, I'd like to know what a degree of entropy is.
?
With all this talk about higher brain functions causing higher entropy, it kinda makes me glad Scarecrow got the brain. Let HIM take the blame.
Dunno about Scare Crows " Higher entropy of the brain" doesn't sound pleasant all to me brother! In Fact like the crows I would scarper quick smart!
It could be worse. It could be lower entropy of the brain and then the whole thing would fall off its twig, like footrot. Middle entropy would suck, too, If the middle storey goes, the top one will follow.
1.) Degree is a synonym for measure. (I refer to measure by use of word degree)
1.b) Reference-A: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/degree
2) "Entropy may be understood as a "measure" of disorder within a macroscopic system". (According to Wikipedia/entropy)
2.b) Reference-B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
OK so you have replaced degree with measure. Give me an estimate of the measure of entropy of a can of soda pop. Just as an example people can wrap their heads around.
@Nyar Re: "...the measure of entropy of a can of soda pop..."
HEY! Easy there, Nyar! Person of Metal here! Have some respect. *wink*
I'm not sure what the point of looking at entropy is, but yes, an EEG of an awake and alert brain does look sporadic and asynchronous, and the more relaxed you become those waves begin to synchronize and oscillate in harmony.
Well my first complaint, is that it is painfully obvious that a consciousness person generates more entropy than a similar unconsciousness person, and had been for at least 50 years, and perhaps 200.
1. There is a difference between suspicion and scientific work.
Throughout history, there have been many suspicions about many things. However, until scientific work is carefully done, those remain suspicions! (Unless you can point me to a paper 50 years back, showing that the relationship between entropy/unconsciousness and consciousness.)
2. Anyway, does your suspicion mean you detect the OP to be somewhat valid, as far as your awareness of the evidence goes?
I keep asking you to lay out a simple entropy calculation to demonstrate you have a clue what you are talking about. For example, what is the ΔS for the opening of say a can of Pepsi at room temperature? I think if you could do that, my complaint would be obvious.
I didn't detect the relevance of said question of yours, regarding a request to compose some soda-pop aligned calculation.
Crucially, I don't detect how an apparently spontaneous entropy calculation, particularly such that the change in reaction of soda (ΔS_total) wrt the surrounding (ΔS_surrounding), reveals sensible data regarding the OP, which concerns brains and not soda.
Instead, here is a summary of the brain, wrt entropy, as far as I detect from evidence:
Of course, as I underlined in my hypothesis, Mateos' et al has used Stirling approximation to compare entropy in terms of the conscious and unconscious brain. (Thus, I don't detect that calculating "soda" reactions will guarantee any sensible data wrt the OP.)
Here is an excellent example of a red flag for skeptics/cynics: intentional obfuscation.
The red flag is reasonably apparent in your odd soda-pop query earlier, instead of my prior response. (Are you "projecting" your errors by claiming the existence of red flag in my response, instead of scrutinizing your priorly odd query?)
Why do you feel soda pop entropy calculation will reveal sensible data wrt entropy calculations of brains?
Do you feel soda pop configuration can give rise to consciousness as seen in the human brain?
Notice the crackpot wants to make grandiose claims about entropy, but can't perform a simple entropy calculation; and resorts to more word salad instead. It is a performance tailor made to attempt to fool people who don't know anything about the subject matter. In short: a snake oil salesman.
1.) My hypothesis, essentially says that Artificial General Intelligence will perform more cognitive tasks, and thus shall reasonably generate more entropy than the human brain.
2.) I don't detect that as a "grandiose claim".
3.) In fact, apparently unbeknownst to you, you somewhat agree to the hypothesis; you responded earlier in your complaint that "that it is painfully obvious that a consciousness person generates more entropy than a similar unconsciousness person"; while it is predicted that AGI shall possess even more conscious States than humans! (I wouldn't call you a crackpot, but reasonably, rather someone who is confused.)
4.) It is rather disappointing that the connections above have to be spelled out to you, as if you were a toddler!
This is a bait and switch, the OP's claim is:
That is a grandiose claim (imo).
html formatting edited
In simpler words, I haven't introduced any novel information throughout this thread, wrt the OP.
Evidence doesn't care about "imo's". Your opinion is noted, but data in a straightforward, non-surprising way, reasonably indicates what my hypothesis underlines.
Summary of hypothesis:
Remember also that the word "purpose" can mean "principle", and there are many principles in science. This means purpose is not constrained to theistic endeavour. (In-case you're at odds with the word "purpose" that has been used wrt theistic endeavour.)
a.) Reference-A: Principle is a synonym for purpose.
b.) Reference-B, Wikipedia/Laws of Science: "The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles..."
c.) Reference-C: Wikipedia/Meaning of life, describes things such as abiogensis, which is separate from theistic endeavour.
Pages