Consiousness and Order

[Quiddity]

Victor--

I don't mean to step on JerryL's toes here, as his examples are very helpful, but I think the computer simulation example I cited earlier is especially simple and clear.

I read about a computer simulation in my chemistry textbook some years ago. In this simulation, small red balls and large blue balls bounced around chaotically in a box. It was found that, over time, the large balls would be 'herded' into a corner. In other words, the amount of order in that particular corner was increased. This localization of order actually caused a net decrease in the order of the system, because having the large balls clumped in a corner meant the small balls had more room to fly around chaotically. I think this is a good example of how the creation of order in one area can increase the disorder of the system as a whole.

Yeah that is a good exmaple. Thanks MS. Localization of order is still a want of nature. If disorder is what it wanted, then no herding in a corner would occur.

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

So the energy lost is not used for another $10 attempt?

My analogy is, I think, good at local vs universal; but it's not good at explaining "loss".

Loss is a much harder concept because it's not "gone", it's just alwys moed to an area of lower dispersion. I don't think there's a good way to extend the analogy to discuss efficiency.

 

[Quiddity]

My analogy is, I think, good at local vs universal; but it's not good at explaining "loss". [/color]

Loss is a much harder concept because it's not "gone", it's just alwys moed to an area of lower dispersion. I don't think there's a good way to extend the analogy to discuss efficiency.

Then how is it ever lost if chances are that it will be reused for some other order? Am I missing something?

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Then how is it ever lost if chances are that it will be reused for some other order? Am I missing something?

Actually, I'm in danger of equivocating "energy" and "potential". My statement was wrong, potential (which is what we are measureing) is irrevocably lost.

So I suppose we can do it with the money analogy. Imagine that the government taxes every transaction, and takes the tax money and burns it. Every time you try to improve your friends fiscal potential by giving him money, a little bit of that money is lost and gone forever.

Your local fortune can rise and fall, but the overall money is always decreasing (potential energy is always decreasing).

 

[Quiddity]

Actually, I'm in danger of equivocating "energy" and "potential". My statement was wrong, potential (which is what we are measureing) is irrevocably lost.

So I suppose we can do it with the money analogy. Imagine that the government taxes every transaction, and takes the tax money and burns it. Every time you try to improve your friends fiscal potential by giving him money, a little bit of that money is lost and gone forever.

Your local fortune can rise and fall, but the overall money is always decreasing (potential energy is always decreasing).

So where does the the potentiality of energy fit into my statement of "Localization of order is still a want of nature. If disorder is what it wanted, then no herding in a corner would occur."

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

So where does the the potentiality of energy fit into my statement of "Localization of order is still a want of nature. If disorder is what it wanted, then no herding in a corner would occur."

~Victor

Order = Potential energy
Disorder = not potential energy

All closed systems always move from order to disorder. You never gain potential energy in a closed system, you always loose it.

 

[Quiddity]

Order = Potential energy
Disorder = not potential energy

All closed systems always move from order to disorder. You never gain potential energy in a closed system, you always loose it.

Ah ok. So would it be inaccurate for me to say that nature has a necessity for creating potential enrgy?

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If disorder is what it wanted, then no herding in a corner would occur.

No, that is incorrect because the 'herding' actually increases the disorder of the system as a whole. Disorder is what the system "wants" and herding does occur because that is how the system achieves maximum disorder.

 

[JerryL]

Ah ok. So would it be inaccurate for me to say that nature has a necessity for creating potential enrgy?

Yes, it would be incorrect. The potential energy in the universe is always decreasing (entropy is increasing).

 

[Quiddity]

No, that is incorrect because the 'herding' actually increases the disorder of the system as a whole. Disorder is what the system "wants" and herding does occur because that is how the system achieves maximum disorder.

Maximum disorder? What the heck is that. So things stop forming?

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Maximum disorder? What the heck is that.

Zero potential energy (no money left).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Maximum disorder? What the heck is that. So things stop forming?

A system that has reached maximum disorder has reached the maximum entropy possible for that system and thus is in a state of equilibrium. So yes--things stop forming.

Here's a good article on entropy and disorder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

 

[Bennettresearch]

Evasive and mildy insulting Bennett. I guess you have no retort for my assertion and must resort to rhetoric.

Not so Jerry,

You want to drag what I said down to a simpler level and dismiss any higher form of consciousness than simple stimulus/response. This is silly and merely argumentative. To dismiss my statement and demand that I address yours is disengenuous.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Yeah that is a good exmaple. Thanks MS. Localization of order is still a want of nature. If disorder is what it wanted, then no herding in a corner would occur.

~Victor

Hi Victor,

I am still not quite getting your meaning here. I would have to agree with the scientific observations of disorder. At the quantum level, chaos and disorder rule. No predictions can be made at this level. This is what the physicists say. I am sympathetic to the question as to how anything gets formed from this state of energy. Right now, it is defined as random chance. There is no unification theory as of yet that would join the Newtonian/Einstein cosmos to the quantum actions of particles at the subatomic level. It has been described as being two different universes. As much as we can look around and see a symbiotic order to things, there is nothing we can observe to that can be defined as the genesis for this order. As much as I believe in God, I can produce no proof that anything has been directed to be this way.

 

[JerryL]

Not so Jerry

[sarcasam]Gee, I thought I was right, but your repeated assertion has proven me wrong [/sarcasam]

You want to drag what I said down to a simpler level and dismiss any higher form of consciousness than simple stimulus/response.

I don't think there is a "higher form of consiousness". The brain is a big, biological, neural network which takes stimuli, runs it through a massivly parallel set of neurons, assigns weights, and gives output. Your arguments relied on a premise that was simply untrue ("consiousness above stimulus/response").

This is silly and merely argumentative

Support your claim.

To dismiss my statement and demand that I address yours is disengenuous.

Really? I thought I disagreed with it. If you would like to talk about dismissive and non-productive; let's look at your response to me:

Very Silly Jerry,

I guess you have nothing to say about human consciousness

[sarcasam]No! That's not argumentative nor dismissive at all [/sarcasam]

It looks to me like I answered your question and your claim. You ignored my response, dismissively insulted it, then hypocritically accused me of doing what you were doing. I've always heard that a fox sniffs its own den first.

You asked a question in post 26

at what point does electrochemistry become the mind? It is more than just a stimulus/response activity.

My answer is "it doesn't". Would you care to argue that it does? I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[JerryL]

I am still not quite getting your meaning here. I would have to agree with the scientific observations of disorder. At the quantum level, chaos and disorder rule. No predictions can be made at this level.

There's that equivocation fallacy I was mentioning. "disorder" in thermodynamics has nothing to do with "predictability". In fact, at complete disorder (maximum entropy) everything s *very* predictable (no change, it's out of potential energy).

I am sympathetic to the question as to how anything gets formed from this state of energy. Right now, it is defined as random chance.

I don't believe that there's any such thing as random.

There is no unification theory as of yet that would join the Newtonian/Einstein cosmos to the quantum actions of particles at the subatomic level.

M-theory is getting there.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Jerry,

I am not going to bother with these long quote networks. First of all, you are reducing the human brain to our physical understanding of it, you are not saying anything about higher consciousness which is what I was talking about. If you are a robotoid, fine, but don't reduce me to one. This supports my comment as to why your post was silly . You admit you don't have anything to say about human consciousness. You apprently don't even think that you have one. You were talking thermodynamics and I was talking about quantum physics. Scientists state that they cannot predict the motions of particles on this level. true statement.

Don't get so offended, you don't seem to care if you offend anyone so why be so sensitive? And yes, there is a higher form of consciousness, that's how I suckered you, and yes your were the target, into commenting on my post. You have been duped and didn't even know it. How about that for a higher state of consciousness?

 

[JerryL]

I do have something to say about "human consiousness". I say that it is a determanistic system of stimulus and response.

I didn't say that scientists could predict activity at the quantum level. I said it was not random.

While I admit that line-by-line can make for an ugly post; I think you are unwilling to do them because you are wrong and you know it. Your intellectual dishonesty, and your use of rhetoric to hide it is, frankly, disgusting.

 

[Cynic]

There is no unification theory as of yet that would join the Newtonian/Einstein cosmos to the quantum actions of particles at the subatomic level.

Yes there is, and it's called M-Theory (formerly known as string theory).

 

[michel]

*walks in takes a look around, scratches head and thinks 'oh, they are still trying to prove an abstract with physics. Shuts door quoetly an slinks away*..............:biglaugh: