Nomad

三件事:
首先,在既定假設前提下,邏輯本身是不保證單一結果,仍然會存在不能分辨不同可能性的情況(consistency 和deterministic是兩回事來的)。所以就算假設人的腦袋的絕對的單一邏輯系統,也無法保證會有「按鍵生效」的機械性)

其二,與傳統電子系統不同,人的神經系統並不是一個"Classical"的電力回路系統,而是化學,電力結合,而且很可能存在著Quantum Effects,所以機械性的反應並不可能。

簡單而言,對於人的意識在現階段只能說：知道太少。

第三,Self-Consistency("Recursive")並不足以令一種研究廢止,或變得不設實際,實際上,Plasma Physics的幾乎所有實驗都是有這種問題的。

Nomad

原帖由 龍井樹 於 2008-9-5 17:00 發表
如果不求精準，不用腦神經專家來講告訴你，任何人都能一般論的說人生就是：生老病死、吃喝拉撒、睡覺性交。

正確,當不求一個可運算的精準理論的時候
任何普通的哲學都可以在某程度上指出人的心理運作,
如此以單一的物理性和機械性(兩者是兩回事)去理解意識則根本沒有其知識意義。

連神經學這門玩意都還是起步階段的時候,對於它的總結都只能說是一種過早的結論而已。

Nomad

原帖由 dye 於 2008-9-5 15:56 發表
電腦內部也一樣有Quantum Effects，化學等不可預期的。

一來我並未說能絕對而完全地預計。真正是理解是不用完全去算出空氣流動，人卻能「安全」建飛機

你不用絕對而完全地預計每個人的消費傾向，卻可挺有把握把基本口糧 ...

電腦內部的Quantum Effects,在現時而言是作為一種電腦的Failing存在
(實際上65nm製程以前的運算核心根本就沒有Quantum Effect可言)
同樣最大的化學效應就是老化。
人腦的Quantum Effects是不是一種Failing呢?沒人知道。就算清楚它的作用,也得是乎觀者的決定
如果一個人認為自己的存在就是一種失誤,那我也無話可說。

相對於人性/人腦,我們對於空氣流動理解上的準確性是頗為嚇人的。
(至少現下沒有人可以拿出一條三維微積公式將神經運作跟相關行為扯上關係)
不過是全球氣候這回玩意在數學上本來就是Chaotic而已。

Nomad

>Why not read a bit on their society and see what they did find before passing judgement?

Why don't you do?
The brain facts publication they made essentially says "we "began" to understood..." in every paragraph, YES they knew a great deal, does that make a determintal statement about our mind? That would be like saying that Quantum Mechanics is finished.

YES, on day one in Nuclear physics we have nuclear bombs as our first working device, probably  also one of the most sophisticated device ever made by humans back then - does it mean that at that point we already know enough of Nuclear physics to speak about a summary or a conclusion of atomic behavior? Well historically it occured some 30-50 years later, maybe not even today as solid state physics still booms like hell.
Maybe I'll think more about making the conclusion of human brain as a mechanical device if one can have all kinds of chips to booster sports skills, math skills, learning ability, additional language packs ... etc.
Here I'm not even saying that one should never make a conclusion about human consciousness, I'm just asking for the abscence of hasty conclusion. After all, we still don't even have a physical definition of that fact that we are receiving stimulus from our own perspectice.