apophenia
Well-Known Member
Only aware beings 'measure'. Until a human interprets data as a measurement, it is merely data with no other qualifier.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Debate of God.
- Thread starter Daviso452
- Start date
Only aware beings 'measure'. Until a human interprets data as a measurement, it is merely data with no other qualifier.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
If a machine can do it without being self-aware, how can it be a test for self-awareness ?
It would be a test for awareness. Not self-awareness, you would need ai for that.
edit: wait which one were you talking about?
They do the mark test for self awareness.
[youtube]W-pc_M2qI74[/youtube]
Amazing Apes: Self-awareness (1/2) - YouTube
[youtube]W-pc_M2qI74[/youtube]
Amazing Apes: Self-awareness (1/2) - YouTube
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I was talking about the monkey mirror test.
(That is generally only applied to animals BTW)
I am saying that it is a currently trivial application to use pattern recognition, an example being 'smile recognition' on your camera.
Since an inanimate object like a digital camera can do facial recognition, how can that prove self-awareness ?
Hence, "if an inanimate machine can do it, how does that prove self-awareness ?"
And AI is only an extension of the same kind of technology now used in inanimate processes, so I can't accept your statement ' Not self-awareness, you would need ai for that.'
apophenia
Well-Known Member
The collapse happens with a non-human present.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
OK
1. How do we know that ? ( Serious question. I'm assuming we record the measuring device and look at it 'later')
2. Does that mean that once a bunch of matter which we define as a measuring device exists, quantum behaviour is affected ?
3. How does a particle 'know' it is being measured, in your opinion ?
( the fruityloop is very funky and the VST saxophones are starting to rock, but I can't stay away ! LOL )
I don't really know the answers but those are very good questions. Almost like reality only comes together when it is being observed or measured, lol, I know that sounds weird.
[youtube]PKioZfRw2-Y[/youtube]
Wave Function Collapse - YouTube
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Well the collapse happens when it is interacted with not really just from looking at it. So it is more of a physical thing I'm sure.
Yeah I listened it was different.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
You still haven't told me what you meant by non-human observer
machine ? animal ?
can't watch the vids right now as I explained earlier, so if the answer to that question is on the vid I didn't see it
apophenia
Well-Known Member
diplomatic answer lol
it is a unique album. crazy poetry over a backing band featuring an amateur orchestra (portsmouth symphonia). an acquired taste perhaps, but a pleasant change from perfectly produced musical gymnastics and the endless torrent of cliche. imho
which reminds me, I really want to work on this musical thing I'm doing, so ... later
A measuring device.
The issue isn't measurement. The reason quantum indeterminacy is often referred to in proximity to talk of "measuring" is because one of the most revolutionary concepts which grew out of quantum physics was the idea that there is an absolute limit to the human capacity to predict the evolution of systems.
In the heyday of classical mechanics, many believed that sooner or later humans would know all the laws which governed the physical world and therefore, as long as they understood all the initial conditions of a system, they could completely determine it's outcome.
The problem the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle posed to this optimisim was one of observation. In order for scientists to understand the initial conditions of a system completely, they need to know everything concerning its initial state, which includes the position particles. However, the observation of particles requires light, or photons, and these will alter the paths of the partciles. Therefore, by trying to determine the initial state, the scientiests inevitably alter it. As a result, complete determinicy is impossible for humans, and the evolution of systems is limited to probability.
In other words, there are particles so small that even light affects their behavior. So to answer your question, the particle doesn't have "know" it is being measured nor does it require someone to "measure" it. When one says "particles are affected by observation" it refers to the fact that observation requires information to go from the sender to the object and back, such as light. If any such information will affect the object (as is the case with absolutely small particles), then there does not exist a method to observe the particle without altering its behavior.
ive heard of this before but never really understood what they were talking about. this video explained it in simple terms even i could understand. trips me out.