Can brain research solve the human puzzle?

202 תגובות

1. The only truth is that we are biological beings with limited minds. Each of us lived for a short and insignificant time mainly in view of the infinity of the universe/time. Everything we think we know is the result of the observations from our limited senses. The arrogant human race thinks it has the most developed consciousness. My argument is that we can try to understand the secret of existence but we will never be able to reach the "truth" because of our limited human perception, just as a bird's mind can never understand the simple meaning of one plus one.
   No matter how much you try to deny it, we are a biological being and anyone who has ever taken a drop of LSD also knows how easy it is to change our perception of our senses and self-awareness... So friends, enjoy life because it's all we have!

2. Prof. Shimon Marom is absolutely right and you don't need to be a genius to understand this, but only a person with internal integrity and a scientific background who understands the principles of scientific methodology.
   Simply put, science studies objective phenomena that occupy space and time by physical laws of material and energy incarnations, and since memory, thought, emotion, will, etc. are subjective phenomena related to a person and not to his mind, neurophysiological science cannot refer to these categories just as it will not draw conclusions about musicology- It's just that the categories are different and as soon as you reduce a person to his mind, you must also make a reduction to the subjective categories that we started with. Of course, there is a (two-way) connection between the physiological mechanisms and the subjective aspects, but all that can be studied in neurobiology is only the mechanisms that allow a person to remember, feel, etc., but they are not the phenomenon itself, which belongs to the psychology and consciousness of a person and a person who knows himself.

3. And on that note, shall we end the discussion that has long since lost its train of thought?

   (All the best to Ychal who is the only one who has the balls to reveal his true existence without a stupid virtual name (it's a shame we can't call him by his name (and have to use other virtual names ourselves to indicate his name) (...close brackets)))))

4. That was me in 197

   But on the other hand, ghosts don't exist either, so you know...

5. Zamboro (197):

   or! We were looking for you.
   Say do you exist or not exist?

6. who called me

7. What has been is what will be.

8. Whatever

9. You are welcome to continue speaking in your own language and accuse others of not understanding you

10. Michal, you make me laugh, the fact that the common expression in people's mouths to exist is things that actually exist, that doesn't make it a mistake, existence is both actual existence and forceful existence, both belong to the group of existents, otherwise they wouldn't be called that

    You, on the other hand, say that mathematical entities actually exist and that is already a really wrong claim

    In any case, when someone's case is based entirely on the fact that people are used to saying existing and intending to actually exist, it is a case that can really rest (rest in peace)

11. now everything is clear.
    You invent new and obviously useless meanings for words.
    If you think you'll tell someone that Zamboro Pazloh exists and they won't think you're lying or that you've fallen on your head, then keep thinking that way.
    I rest my case

12. Exists is all that exists (both in force and in practice), it is not clear, what is not clear to you?

13. Nadav:
    What is not clear about this (and I find it hard to believe how it is even possible to have a discussion when one of the parties deliberately ignores contradictory things he wrote) is that on the one hand you write that Zamboro Patzloh exists only by force and on the other hand you write "what exists by force exists".
    So decide!
    Does Zamboro Psaloh exist or not?

14. Mich-El, z-mboro Paltzoch does exist in force, what is not clear about that?
    The attainment of the things that exist by force comes from our ability to abstract things that actually exist or from our ability to infer that necessitates the existence (by force) of a thing necessarily, but I have already explained it, you actually wrote the sentence "a boy whose name is Zamboro Palzoh" and I abstracted from this sentence an idea About such and such a child he exists by force in my mind without any need for an active reason (i.e. stupid parents who named their child that way)

    So ask what is the difference between Z-mboro and the circle?
    A circle is something that can be stripped from many more things that exist in practice, and therefore it also exists by force in many more people and in a more distinct manner, the existence of Zmboro can only be stripped from your strange sentence "a boy called Zmboro Falzoh" and therefore it exists by force only in Anyone who has read this sentence and this is also a terribly shocked and undefined existence (what does he look like, what is his weight, what is the color of his eyes, etc.)

15. Nadav:
    I completely disagree with you.
    I won't start asking you now about electrons, protons and neutrinos.
    You will continue to try to avoid the necessary conclusion and accuse me of making things up.
    I assume that in your opinion this sentence that appears in your response 109 is also fictional
    "Z-mboro Patzloh - exists by force, (but you have to use a lot of force to realize its existence)"

16. Michael
    I do not infer the existence of the cat from my information about photons, I infer its existence from the existence of some action on the pupil of my eye, when something activates something else and continues to activate it persistently, the intellect treats it as actually existing, the car does not infer anything and that is why the car also has no concept called Existence, it simply exists because there are things that sustain it, but it does not achieve its existence, the intellect achieves "existence" both of itself and of other things and it does so in two ways - in practice and by force,
    Regarding the continuation, you don't need to make things up, just read my first definition of existence (response 102)

17. Nadav:
    This is not cleverness.
    People did not know about the existence of photons and to this day - anyone you ask - will be more certain that there is a cat than that there are photons.
    You do not infer the existence of the cat because you know about the photons but the opposite.
    Drawing conclusions is a conscious action and language - which is actually the subject of our discussion - is also part of our consciousness.
    Do you think the car infers that it should drive from the combination of the physical factors that surround it?
    I can't believe you would go that far.
    There is no contradiction in the claim "not everything that exists by force exists" and I have already explained that the word exists when it is without an addition is used to indicate "actually exists".
    You too, when you feel like it, use these two expressions and mean different things. In fact, you brought the subject of "existing by force" into the conversation and did so because you knew it was different from just "existing".
    And of course - Zamburo Patzloh exists by force and does not exist. Do you claim otherwise?

18. Michal, you are smart, I don't need to know that what hits my eye is a thing called a photon in order to deduce the existence of my cat from the thing that activated my eye, something is the active cause of what hit my eye and that is my cat, that's why I am aware of its existence , and the claim "not everything that exists by force exists" is a claim that contains a contradiction that nicely shows your confusion of concepts

19. Nadav:
    I have nothing to say.
    Do you think people knew about photons before they knew about cats and that they deduced the existence of cats from the burst of photons?
    It is clear that the opposite is true.
    Although photons, electrons and all other things have influenced us in unconscious ways since time immemorial, but the way we deduced their existence was the opposite of what you describe.
    And of course - not everything that exists by force exists and we've already talked about the boy Zamboro Patzloh.
    I do not understand what you are saying.

20. Mi-Kal - of course I didn't mean that you don't understand anything, but in relation to my claims.
    I'm not trying to explain why certain things exist and others don't, I'm just trying to define the multitude of things that our mind perceives as existing things, I also "infer" the existence of my cat by thinking about the burst of photons that hits my eyes when I look at it, and also the existence of my eyes I conclude in a similar way when I look at them in the mirror or touch them, etc. Existence is a concept of the intellect, but in the intellect itself there is a difference between the things that exist, and I really don't want to repeat the explanation again, simply because it is already written here in several forms, with several examples

    Regarding the claim regarding the revelations of different mathematical laws, there is no contradiction with what I said, but only confirmation of the fact that you did not understand anything from what I said - what exists by force exists!!

21. Another fact that joins the multitude of facts that support the claim that mathematics is an existing fact that is discovered and not invented, is the fact that different mathematicians - even without meeting each other - will always (to the point of admitting a mistake) discover the same mathematical laws.
    It is different from any field in which man creates.
    Two writers will not write the same story and two painters will not draw the same painting (except in cases of plagiarism).
    I am not claiming that there is no creativity in mathematics. The opposite is true, but creativity is expressed in the ways the mathematician takes to reach the result and not in the result itself.

22. By the way, Nadav:
    Now I understood another source of argument between us.
    I think we are talking about two different things.
    You are trying to explain why certain things exist and others do not while I am trying to explain why we conclude about certain things that they exist and about others that they do not exist.
    Of course, in our language - the word exists describes entities that we have concluded that they exist, so I think I am answering the right question.
    The truth is, I would also argue with you about your answer to the question you chose to address, but I found it unpleasant to argue with you, so I won't.

23. No need to exaggerate.
    I didn't understand your arguments, but there are a thing or two that I do understand.

24. Michal, you really didn't understand anything in practice

25. Well, of course everything is reversed here.
    The electron is not a result of anything we feel but rather a cause of them but how many times can it be repeated again and again and again.

26. S, Lisa and Michael, I will try to repeat myself and explain one last time, beyond that there really isn't much to add on the subject

    I did not invent any word, most people, when they use the expressions - "actually exists" mean the world that is perceived by our senses and exists by force as something that has a potential existence but does not have a physical reality, in my opinion these are missing definitions and I tried to expand them and define the existence of a thing based on the characterization of its cause , a thing that actually exists, let's say a circle drawn on a page has a specific active cause (or causes) (the page, the pencil, etc.) A thing that exists by force, let's say the idea of ​​the perfect circle does not have specific active causes, but only causes that also exist by force (an imaginary space in our minds) These two, in my opinion, are applicable parallels and express all that exists

    The intuitive definitions of these concepts are included in my definition, because what the senses perceive are simply things that have a cause that acted on the senses, such as rays of light that hit the pupil of the eye and activated it, but even if there were no senses there would be a whole physical world that actually exists because it has active causes they also exist in practice and thus and they also have reasons and so on ad infinitum

    Michael, in your definition, on the other hand, you did not expand the accepted meaning but changed it completely, you state that mathematical entities, or mathematical laws exist in practice, but this is something that goes against the intuitive definition that what actually exists is what is perceived by the senses and also goes against my definition that what actually exists needs a reason operates and I also explained this - to the concept - "a perfect circle" there is no active cause, there is nothing in the universe that is a "perfect circle" because there is nothing in the universe that is the active cause of such a thing, our mind simply stripped this partial essence from things that have active causes, Remember her alone and even after these things no longer exist before him he can still sustain this essence by force without needing their active cause

    In addition to that, later you moved in an unclear manner to discussing the claims themselves and their eternal correctness, and even then I explained to you that the correctness of the claims does not make the objects of the claims actually exist - the sentence "If the God of Israel existed, he would have created the world in six days" is also true, but This does not make the object - "the God of Israel" actually exist, in the same way that "the sum of the angles in a triangle is equal to 180 degrees" does not make the object - "triangle" a thing that actually exists

    That's it, I don't think I can add more without repeating myself again and again and again

27. o.:

    I did not claim that there is a paradox in the sentence.
    The claim is that the sentence creates a connection (which is contrary to intuition) between the concept of "existence" and the concept of "truth".

    Since it was argued in this discussion that there is such a connection between the concepts (in mathematics and the claims of existence "by force"), I considered it appropriate to present the sentence

    I disagree that "philosophy-of-language" is not part of the discussion. I think she has a central part in the discussion.

28. Lisa:
    Many times it is possible to derive encouragement for a certain interpretation of a word from the terms in which it is combined.
    Think about the phrase "he kept his promise".
    What does this phrase mean?
    After all, the promise existed from the moment he made it, so why should it be fulfilled?
    The answer is that when it is carried out it becomes true!
    Keeping a promise is the step that makes it true.

29. S.:
    I don't think I made up any words.
    on the contrary. I tried to clarify the meaning of existing words and I think I succeeded in doing so.
    At some point, in order to allow the discussion to continue, I also tried to give a plausible interpretation to the terms that Nadav used. This is not a collaboration in inventing words, but an attempt to bring the different modes of expression to a common denominator. I hoped that by doing this I could convince Nadav to switch from the way of expression he chose and which also confuses me to using clearer terms - that is - that after he sees the equivalence between his terms and the familiar terms he will switch to using the familiar terms.
    I didn't succeed in that. In fact, I don't know what exactly I failed in - was it in my attempt to show the equivalence or in my assessment that understanding the equivalence would cause a change in the use of terms, but overall - the hoped-for result was not obtained.

    In my opinion, the discussion was completely pointless.
    I think the definition of the terms used is an important thing and the use of undefined terms is the basis of many misunderstandings.
    I also think that a large part of the focus in this discussion was created following Lisa's response 98 which I think was helpful and important.

    Lisa:
    I think I answered your question.
    A claim is true when it is true.
    This, in my opinion, is the "correct" use of the word.
    I put the word "true" in quotation marks because I wanted to emphasize the fact that language is merely a matter of conventions and it is completely legitimate to decide that "exists" is actually "belly dancing". I tried to point out the meaning which I think balances correctly between the need for the definitions to be clear, meaningful and useful and the fact that overall it is a social convention. I tried to find the meaning closest to what seems to me to be the accepted interpretation that people give to the word, from among the meanings that meet the requirement of clarity and usefulness.
    As for your question about the sentence "this sentence does not hold" - it really does not belong to the matter discussed here but to a completely different matter and it is the matter of paradoxes which is discussed on this website in several articles and in many responses.
    In the current case it is a paradox resulting from self-instruction (Self-reference)
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/self-instructed-pardox-020808

30. Lisa,
    The sentence of course "exists" in the sense that it exists - here you wrote it here in the talkback.
    The alleged law asserts itself that it does not exist, even though it does exist as stated.
    Hence - this is a false sentence.
    This, in terms of the claim in question. The sentence is a false claim.
    That's all, there is no mystery, paradox or anything like that.

    If we claim "this sentence is false" then we will have a paradox. For if it is false, it is true, and if it is true, it is false. But it has no meaning in the world, because it's just juggling words. A claim from the field of philosophy of language and not from the scientific field. This sentence mainly shows that the fact that words can be connected to each other does not necessarily create something meaningful.
    Since your question brings philosophy-of-language questions into the discussion, in my opinion it is not related to the discussion going on here,
    Even though both Michael and Nadav (well, mainly Nadav, and Michael cooperates) insist on inventing words. This invention of words and the confusion that is created in the definitions, creates a barren discussion.

31. Nadav:
    I said mine.
    Those who were convinced were convinced.

    You said yours too.
    Whoever was convinced (I didn't even understand) was convinced.

    I actually read your comment when I got to the computer to write a certain extension because I thought the rest was obvious.
    Now I'm writing it just like that - maybe someone will understand it and maybe not, but with this I will end my participation in this discussion (this is a continuation of what I said before and it has nothing to do with your last comment, which I did not understand).

    In my opinion there is a place to define another term which is "agreement of claims".
    I came to this conclusion when I spoke about "came to curse and came out to bless".
    What is true in force is the summary of the claims "at time Y, X came to curse and came out to bless".
    As soon as values ​​(specific person and time) are placed in place of X and Y, it becomes a claim that can be true in practice, or false

32. Well the question still stands:
    When can it be claimed that a claim exists (in practice or by force)?
    Is this when a claim is true?
    (Does "this sentence does not hold" hold?)

33. Michael again, you are clear that I meant that all the claims that exist, exist in practice, as far as I'm concerned, there is no claim in the world without someone to assert it, and therefore no claim exists either, as long as it is not maintained by some person, the fact that any claim always exists in nature does not give rise to the claim A status of actual existence, this status is given only by the person who claims it.
    Even if from our point of view the expression - "there are beautiful things in nature" is always true, this still does not mean that an object - "a beautiful thing" actually exists, it only means that if the mind perceives something as a "beautiful thing" then it will always recognize beautiful things in nature, the same for A mathematical claim, the fact that all the angles of a triangle are always equal to 180 degrees does not make the triangle a thing that actually exists nor does it make the claim about the triangle also exist in practice, the triangle exists by force as an abstract idea and the claim exists in practice as something said or written by some person
     

34. Rah:
    I explained it.
    Since the mathematical sentence includes the "if" part and within this part the axioms are also included, then as soon as the axioms do not hold - the sentence holds "empty".
    Therefore, it is not a problem to give an example because every mathematical sentence is an example.
    Even in our world it is possible to define mathematical structures for which there is no physical model, but their correct sentences will be true "out of the box" in our world.

    The truth is that in my opinion, beyond the above, it also depends on which axioms you are talking about.
    The above is completely clear when it comes to a system of axioms that defines a specific structure (like a bunch or like the natural numbers).
    On the other hand - although to a large extent the same can be argued about the axioms of logic (which are axioms "encapsulated" in any specific mathematical structure) - I don't think there is any point in doing so. These really seem to me to be necessary axioms.

35. Michael, regarding 161. How can one assert a claim that exists "in every possible world"? Can you give an example of such a claim?
    In my understanding, the entire structure of mathematics is based on axioms. In a world where the axioms don't hold, everything will be different, won't it?

36. Response 166 was required to complete my response to Lisa.

    Nadav:
    I have already explained what you say about claims in my response 161.
    It is not true that all the claims actually exist because not every claim to power is claimed by someone.
    I elaborated a lot on this topic in response 161, which I don't think you delved into.

37. expansion:
    Usually - when you say "exists" you use what we started to call "actually exists" here.
    The expression "exists in practice" was born only after the expression "exists in force" was born - to differentiate between the two.
    That's why even when they say "the phrase was fulfilled in him…." We mean, of course, "the expression actually took place in him...".

    Another extension:
    I explained what is meant by the expression "the claim holds".
    Now - what happens with a claim that always necessarily holds?
    A claim of this kind takes on the status of a law of nature.
    A natural law is a consequence of nature and does not need someone to assert it.
    That's why - when talking about laws of nature - the term "exists" is repeated.
    The statement that there is a law of nature that says X is equivalent to the statement "The claim X is always and necessarily true"
    That is why I also say that the laws of mathematics (which are part of the laws of nature) exist.
    And again - existing is actually existing.

38. Michal, I see it differently

    There is no discussion here at all about the existence of claims, all claims exist in practice, even false and completely delusional claims, there is no need to classify their existence at all, because they simply exist and their active cause is the person who claims them, a claim is not measured at all by its existence but only by its degree of correctness and that is given classify in different ways, right now, always right, sometimes right, paradoxical, wrong, etc., but we are not dealing with classifying claims, we are dealing with classifying the objects of the claims and what to do, not all the objects about which we can claim something exist in the same way, there are objects that actually exist and there are others that exist by force, the number one, exists by force but, the only apple that is on my table, actually exists, and these objects should be classified as different types of existence

39. Lisa:
    The terms "truth" and "false" are significant only in relation to claims.
    It is not true to say that I am true, but it is true to say that I exist.
    Regarding claims - it is customary to say that they "exist" when they were genuinely designed (as mentioned - claims exist when someone asserts them, regardless of their truth, but that is not what interests them. We are interested in information on the degree of truth of the claims - that is, information on the degree of their existence).
    Think about the claim "He came to curse and came out to bless".
    This is a claim that can be made about someone - I can claim that Balaam came to curse and left to bless and then it would be a true claim; I can claim that Harry Potter came to curse and came out to bless and then it would be a false claim.
    This is a case of a claim that, according to my definition, exists only by force - depending on the circumstances.
    This is also why the form of expression that uses the expression "the expression took place in him..."
    For example, when they say "the expression 'came to curse and came out to bless' was fulfilled in him" they mean that that person did - really - came to curse and came out to bless. Why is it said that the expression existed in this person? Because the expression does not always hold! It exists in this person but not in every person.

40. Thank you Mr. Roschild for your detailed response.

    There was still no direct reference to my question about "existence" and "truth".
    I will admit to you that this is a tricky question.
    I thought of the following sentence (from Kurt Gadel's creative house):
    "This sentence does not exist"

    This sentence not only creates an affinity between the two concepts - it also creates an affinity that is somewhat contrary to our intuition.
    If this sentence is a true sentence then it follows that it does not exist.
    If this sentence is false then it exists.
    And the opposite:
    If the sentence exists then it is false
    If the sentence does not exist then it is a true sentence

41. Note:
    In light of the difference I distinguish between the claim (something that someone claims) and its content (something unrelated to the existence of a claimant) I use the term "the claim holds" to talk about the fact that a content is true. To talk about the claim itself I use the word existing (which refers only to the claim as an expression of something that someone claims, regardless of the correctness/existence of software)

42. In my opinion it is still a choice of words and I think my choice of words is more useful.
    In my opinion, it is essential to distinguish between the claim "there is a child named Zamburo Patzloh" and the claim "if a couple of parents decide to name their son who was born Zamburo Patzloh there will be a child named Zamboru Patzloh".
    The first claim is true only by force and in our world, by definition it is not true in practice, while the second claim is absolutely true - in every possible world, and is therefore true in practice.
    It is necessary to distinguish between the existence of a claim and the existence of the content of the claim.
    A claim - any claim - exists by force. It also exists in practice from the moment someone claims it - regardless of its correctness. Therefore the claim that God created the world in six days is a claim that exists in practice but is not true (software does not exist in practice), the claim that God created the world in 15 days does not exist in practice and is not true, the claim that man is a type of monkey is a claim that exists in practice that software also exists in practice And of course there are also claims that do not exist in practice, but their design actually exists in practice (simply no one has yet discovered their correctness. Fermat's theorem was, for example, such until recently. Its content has always existed in practice, but only after it has been proven do we allow ourselves to assert the claim that describes it).

    There is a real and existing difference between all two claims, but in order to express the differences between the claims we simply use different wording for each of them.
    When we come to define terms that separate the claims into different types, it is desirable that we choose types that are really different - meaning that it would be a mistake to use a type A claim in the same way as a type B claim. Otherwise - what is the classification for?
    Basing ourselves on a claim that is mathematically correct will never make us wrong.
    Basing ourselves on a claim that is not mathematically correct may cause us to make a mistake.
    That is why it is essential to differentiate between these claims and the differentiation using the terms "correct in practice" versus "correct by force" seems appropriate to me.
    The mathematically correct claims - in the practical sense of being based on their design - are more similar to claims whose design has been tested experimentally than to claims whose degree of correctness is unknown.
    In fact, there are several types of claims that can be ranked according to the degree of our ability to base ourselves on them, and the order between them is as follows:
    1. Absolutely correct claims (such as have been proven mathematically and exist in every possible world).
    2. Claims whose correctness has been confirmed in many experiments and has never been refuted in an experiment (which may not have a mathematical justification in any possible world, but in our world they probably exist)
    3. Claims whose correctness has not been confirmed or refuted - neither experimentally nor mathematically
    4. Claims whose correctness has been disproved in an experiment
    5. Claims whose correctness has been mathematically disproved.

    If you want to classify the claims in an efficient and useful way, you should classify 1 and 2 as "existing in practice" (I'm talking about the content of the claims and not the claims themselves), 3 as "true/existing by force", 4 and 5 as "untrue"

43. Nad,

    What is your point of view on the question from 155?

44. Ra'anan does not seem to me that someday "we will really be able to fully understand the phenomena of nature, down to the smallest resolution."

    Or even understand everything. Certainly not us, and certainly not in our generation or in another 1000 generations and certainly not human beings
    There will be, but they will understand "until the end".

    Regarding languages ​​on the computer, I happened to think about the subject of 'languages' and I think the fact that today the majority
    do not understand the languages ​​they once spoke (but know how to speak the language they speak),
    This fact only proves that languages ​​change, and how people speak today, in 1000 years for example
    They will speak a different language than today, and in 1000000 years they will speak in a different way, that is
    How a million years ago the ancient man did not know how to speak complex words (consisting of many letters)
    but mainly 'made sounds' (like animals 'talking' for example), also in another million years the creature 'man'
    Maybe there won't even be or there will be a different type from the one that exists today, so also the means of communication between them
    Creatures will change.

    The arguments are also related to 'language'.
    I think that the debates, between those commenting on this article, arise because of a correct misunderstanding of A.
    The particular definition claimed by B - who understands A's definition in a different way than A defines it.

45. Mi-Kal, I don't think the difference is in the choice of words, in my opinion this is a real and existing difference.

    What exists is expressed in two different forms, you can't take it away, the circle I draw on a page doesn't exist like the circle I perceive in my mind, the first one needs a specific page, a specific pencil, a specific ruler and a specific person to draw it, etc., i.e. active causes that also exist In practice, it receives not only its circularity but also its size, the thickness of its line, its color, etc., every circle I draw will be a different circle, the idea of ​​the circle that exists in force, needs reasons that also exist in force like a two-dimensional space and the ability to delimit engineering shapes from it - the space that exists in force is the cause of the circle that exists in force and is not the cause of a specific circle.

    And from that the root of minus one is not an active cause for anything specific and therefore does not exist in practice, but this does not make its existence by force any less important or less existent, there is no hierarchy here at all, only different expressions of existence

46. Refresh (156):
    I disagree with your first statement. The reductionist approach claims that it is possible in principle to map every phenomenon in nature to the lowest levels. There is a difference between this claim and your assertion that the level of description of the phenomena is physical.
    Please show me where there is a description of the phenomenon of wildebeest migration in the Serengeti at the level of quantum mechanics.
    Claim:
    "Only then can we really fully understand the phenomena of nature"
    I completely disagree with that. So much so that I would argue the complete opposite. There are phenomena whose description at the quantum level will prevent any real understanding of them. The appropriate level for describing wildebeest migration is certainly not the quantum level - but the level of the wildebeest, of animal behavior, their needs, their life cycle, etc. (This does not contradict the assumption that there is a description of this phenomenon at the quantum level, but such a description would in fact prevent any understanding of the phenomenon instead of the opposite)

    The same goes for programming languages. The issue of understanding is one of the motivations for the creation of advanced programming languages. Show me one programmer who will understand the essence of the assembly code of a program (even the simplest one) written in the Java language.

    It is necessary to separate the fact that this mapping is indeed feasible and the distinction that high levels of illumination are intended precisely to aid understanding.

    Another thing,
    When it comes to natural phenomena - what is the lowest level of illumination? Does such exist?

47. The level of scientific description of all! A phenomenon in nature including the brain is physical.
    I can describe some natural phenomenon on a chemical or biological level if you want, because for reasons of convenience and efficiency it will be easier, but the real language of nature is the language of quantum mechanics and the standard model (and maybe even theory of scales and smaller scales with string theory), and every level A description whether it is chemical or biological or large-scale physics (the theory of relativity) needs, and should be perfectly converted and translated to a quantum level of description. It might be technically inconvenient to perform such a "translation", but only then can we really fully understand the phenomena of nature, down to the smallest resolution.

    Just like in a computer there are many programming languages, and it doesn't matter which one you use because at the end all the programs convert the commands into the real language of the computer, binary.

48. Another question that popped up for me:

    Is there a connection between the concept of "existence" and the concept of "truth"?
    Is all that true exists? Does everything that is false not exist?

49. In my opinion, this difference between "by force" and "in practice" is really already a matter of choice of words and has no fundamental importance.
    I still prefer the definition of mathematical laws as true in practice because I do not want to claim that things happen in the real world for reasons that are only "by force" and not "in practice".
    To clarify this I return to the number i (the root of minus one).
    This is a number that has no fulfillment in our world and yet we see that it allows us to make predictions about things that actually exist and to a large degree of justification one can see it and its properties as one of the reasons for the actual behavior of those things.
    I prefer to keep the phrase "exists by force" only for things whose existence, even though they are logically possible, is not bound by reality.
    As soon as the wording of a law includes within it the conditions under which the conclusion of the law holds, it always holds - even if sometimes on empty.
    In mathematics, it is very common to talk about laws that exist in a vacuum.
    For example, the law "all children who raise an alien in a hot air balloon are redheads" exists in our world simply because there are no children who raise an alien in a hot air balloon.
    Those who have dealt with formal logic also know about the equivalence between the condition "A entails B" and the condition "neither A nor B"

50. Mi-Kal, I'm happy about the change of attitude, I for my part will try to do something similar

    From your explanation, it seems to me that we can focus more on the difference between our approaches
    If I understood you, you claim that the mathematical laws actually exist, because they are always true, because they contain within them the conditions that determine their existence
    As you will see in my definition, I did not define "actual existence" as something that is always true, for me things that are always true also exist, but not in practice, but by force
    And this is the difference between the physical and the mathematical world
    The mathematical world uses entities that are based on generalized or reduced ideas, the number one for example, expresses the number of something, it is not an entity that actually exists, its existence depends on the mind's ability to strip something from things that actually exist and turn it into an idea, once the mind has done this action, it no longer needs a reason works for the existence of that one and he can say that he simply exists, but without the operation of the mind, this one appears in nature only as part of something else that has an active cause, there is nothing that is only one and therefore there is also nothing that is only - one plus one equals two Therefore this sentence exists only by force

    I do not want it to appear from these things that I think actual existence has some kind of ontological priority, both the things that exist in power and the things that actually exist are different expressions of the same being, if there was no concept of "one", there would be no single things at all, but if there were no things Together, the concept of "one" did not exist, it is two things that are inherent in each other and only the mind in its action creates a separation between them

51. Nadav:
    I think we made some progress in the discussion after all.
    As far as I'm concerned - the progress is that I was able to overcome my anger towards you and realize that the discussion could have been more successful if instead of "looking for contradictions" in your words - as you rightly said I did - I would have tried harder to separate essential things from the mistakes in the wording. I just had to help you correct the wording mistakes and not turn them against you.
    In fact there is in my opinion only one essential thing that I think I should have pointed out. Beyond the same essential thing - I had to settle for responses 99 and 104 which describe more or less everything I think about the matter, if the same essential thing is taken into account.
    The essential thing is the actual existence of the mathematical laws.
    In fact - the mathematical laws are exactly all the laws that exist "by definition".
    This description of the mathematics is reflected in many of my words but perhaps I should have said it more explicitly.
    You can find it, for example, in response 41 and at the end of response 66 in this discussion or in the response I gave to Lisa here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/is_science_the_new_religion-27401104/#comment-260568

    In fact, as I said in that response to Lisa, and in many other responses, mathematics is a set of rules structured as follows:
    If These and these conditions are met Then One and another results will be obtained.
    What makes it true in all worlds is a combination of two things:
    1. She does not pretend to claim more than she can prove - this is manifested in the fact that every sentence has the "if" part - those "such and such conditions" that only when they are met does the "then" part take place
    2. It defines the entities that participate in its formulations - both the entities referred to in the "if" part and those referred to in the "then" part

    Now, if you read your words in a more sympathetic spirit than I did in this discussion, and try to correct them instead of attacking them, it is possible to see in the conditions for the existence of the sentence - to which I referred in my words - what you meant by the term "final and defined".
    What makes a mathematical law "definite and defined" are exactly the conditions that appear in the "if" part.
    Therefore a mathematical law exists in all worlds. He doesn't take on more than he can handle. It is final and defined because of the conditions it itself sets in the "if" part for the existence of the things that appear in the "then" part.
    All these things - both the things that are used in the "if" part and those that appear in the "then" part exist only by force.
    The mathematical theorem itself - exists in practice because because of the conditions it sets for itself, a world is not possible in which it does not exist: if the "if" conditions are not met, then the mathematical theorem actually asserts nothing, and therefore it exists "on a blank"; If the "if" conditions are met - it is guaranteed that the "then" conditions will be met and therefore the trial will be held "in full".

    The child "Zamburo Pazloh" exists only by force, but the sentence "If a child is born whose parents call him Zamboro Pazloh, then there will be a child named Zamboro Pazloh" is a sentence that is true in every possible world. It is simply true (of course it will be completely mathematical and true only if we bother to define well what a child is, what parents are, what birth is, etc. but I hope the idea is clear).

    There can be any number of cows in a barn, but the sentence "If on a certain day there are 15 cows in the barn and at the end of it you open the door and let in two cows and at no point do you put in more cows or take cows out, then the next day there will be 17 cows in the barn" - is also true in every possible world (again - if you define well all the entities that take part in its formulation).

    Beyond this clarification, as mentioned, the things to which we attribute existence are exactly, as I said in 99 and 104, the causal closure of the collection of phenomena that we notice with our senses.
    The things to which we attribute non-existence are things whose (mathematically) necessary results include phenomena that we can distinguish by the fact that they do not exist (or - in other words - things that have been disproved in a scientific experiment).
    Things whose existence or non-existence have no effect on the input of our senses - can exist or not exist - we have no way of knowing and in any case they have no effect on our lives and therefore it is better not to make any claims about them at all (and note: this sentence is also not a claim dealing with those things This sentence is a claim that deals with us).

52. Whatever your answers to the above will be and even if you don't agree that this is a law but a mere inference (Whatever that may be), does this inference exist?
    If it exists it means that you are ready to justify the existence of things according to the definitions, but when I said the same thing about the laws of mathematics you did not agree. Can you explain the difference?

53. Someone comes to his friend and says to him:
    "I see 17 cows in your barn.
    Yesterday there were only 15 in it.
    What is the reason for that?"
    "Fishita," his friend answers him, "is this barn limited?"
    "Yes," replies the astonished man.
    "She is also limited in time and we are talking about present time, right?" The friend continues and makes it difficult.
    "True," replies the man who doesn't understand what they want from him.
    "this is the reason!" The friend answers him. "The restrictions are the reason for the number of violations!"

54. Nadav:
    Let's go through the things one by one because if you write two things you get confused and then blame me.
    Answer me seriously:
    What is the "inference that follows from the definition"?
    I'll clarify the question so you don't keep evading:
    1. You say that "this" is the conclusion that follows from the definition, so the first question is what is the definition you are talking about.
    2. When you draw a conclusion from this definition - what inference rules do you use and do they exist?
    3. I know all kinds of inferences: we infer the existence of physical laws from observing physical phenomena. We also infer the existence of various physical bodies. In the end - what we conclude is something. He does not remain a mere "inference". In this case too - the use you make of this "inference" is a use of law. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a law. If you claim that it is not a law - by what right do you demand that existing things comply with it? Only laws need to be followed and nothing is obligated to follow your conclusions.

    We will kill a Turk and rest.

55. I suggest that this discussion ceases to exist in practice.
    If not, I will ask my father to end his existence by force.

56. Correction - deduction

57. Ahhhh, you're difficult, you just didn't understand anything, it seems to me that you're just skimming over what I'm writing trying to find contradictions

    A circle is something that exists by force, in order for it to exist (by force) it needs a space that exists by force
    A circle that you drew on a page actually exists, in order for it to exist (in reality) it needs a space that actually exists - that is, the page on which you drew it

    What is so difficult for you?

    The inference expressed in the definition is simply something that necessarily follows from the definition itself, it is called induction

58. "Example space is not an active cause"
    I assume that two-dimensional space is also included in this sentence.

    But also (and we don't care about the contradiction):
    "For example, a circle is a finite and limited thing, its existence depends on the existence of another thing that also exists, for example, two-dimensional space"

59. You have not explained even once (including not this time) what you claim to have explained many times.
    Now you have added another gem: "the conclusion that is expressed in the definition"
    Stunning!

60. Michael, if you don't understand something, it's not a reason to get upset, it's a really wrong way to learn new things
    Finite and defined is anything that has something that can limit its existence and thus also be the reason for its existence, a circle for example is a finite and limited thing, its existence depends on the existence of another thing that also exists, for example, a two-dimensional space, which is also finite and limited and its existence depends on another thing and so on to nothing End, I've explained it several times haven't I?

    An active cause is any specific thing that is perceived as activating something else and thus also defines its existence, space for example is not an active cause but the space and time in which we exist are an active cause for many things

    The "law" that everything finite and defined must have a cause is not a law at all, but the conclusion expressed in the definition
    And I have already explained this to you before, when you say "final and defined" you also necessarily say that there is something that ends and defines something, this thing is its cause!

    But you will continue to get sad and angry and filled with negative feelings from this response as well, so let's end it here, really but

61. Nadav:
    I am really sad and angry.
    You constantly make claims and the opposite and really just argue.
    I'm just fed up.
    In addition to this, you define unknown definitions of "definite and definite" things without defining what "definite and definite" is, you talk about "active reason" without saying what it is and the difference between an active reason and a white-collar reason, and above all, you base all your words on absurd:
    According to you there is some law that everything "definite and defined" should have a reason.
    This law in my view is completely "final and defined" and has no reason and is therefore also incorrect.
    And if you claim that it is not "final and defined" then for you it does not actually exist at all and therefore there is no reason to actually apply it to anything else.
    But why am I being dragged into an argument with you again?
    abandoned.

62. Michael, your last comment is sad and violent

63. Nadav:
    You already said the opposite of everything you said so it's no problem to find an example of anything but really leave me alone.

    Disposable reagent:
    Thanks.
    Nadav says he knows who you are. If you know who he is - kick him in my name.

64. And in any case - it's a shame that you wasted your only response on earth with words of reproach and profanity

65. Mi-Kal, I also did not say that mathematics is in the status of false ideas, I clearly explained the difference between something that exists in force, and something that is a false idea in response 103, you got confused again, what will happen?

    The one-time responder - I know who you are and what motivates you 🙂

66. for a one-time response.
    I wanted to thank you, mi-ka-el, for your excellent responses - 99 and 104 that really "sort out" the confused issue of the definition of existence.
    I have never seen such a sharp definition that is reasoned with so much clarity and really forces the intelligent reader to accept it.
    I am simply replying to say thanks to you but at the same time I would like to suggest you stop arguing with Nad.

    Anyone who follows the series of comments will immediately notice that he is only looking to argue with you and nothing else interests him.
    It is clear that what you answer him will not affect him and if you think that it helps others to understand then - in my opinion - you are wrong.
    The things are written so well in the original comments that there is no need for an explanation and repetition of the things just because someone is too lazy to read or refuses to understand only causes the excellent comments to disappear in the mountains of garbage.

    I would appreciate it if you stopped responding to him, but I'll understand if you can't (because he's really annoying).
    I, in any case, intend to justify my name and not comment further. I don't have time for ticks.

67. That's right, Nadav.
    I'm already confused by most of your nonsense. After so many misquotes of you, I am also allowed to make a mistake once in quoting your pearls.
    You didn't say this nonsense - you only said that the status of mathematics, like the status of other ideas, is also wrong.
    This idea is at odds with Tagmark's approach that in other responses you are simply saying (even if not consciously) that you believe in it.
    But I'm tired.

68. who-as-al
    Where did I say that math is limited in time? You do not at all understand the difference between a thing whose existence is absolute, and a thing whose existence is limited (it has nothing to do with time)

    abandoned

69. Nadav:
    you don't understand
    You don't even understand your own approach, because if you understood it, you would see that part of it is simply a quote from Tagmark, while another part opposes the indefinite existence of mathematics.

    Whatever.

70. Michael, I understand your approach very well, it seems that you are the one who does not understand your approach and the contradiction inherent in it

    Whatever

71. I'm sorry, Nadav. I can't do more than speak clearly and explain things many times. If you don't understand you don't understand.

72. Michael,
    Your contradiction remains and you have not been able to get out of it
    Let's say that the pontiac that sustains this or that thing is absolute, but the thing it sustains depends on time, meaning it exists at one time and does not exist at another time - I repeat "does not exist" that is
    There are things that are not absolute, even if they are only products of something whose existence is absolute, then your definition does not cover the entire field of existing things, in fact it does not
    Nothing that can be obtained as existing as a private and definite thing

    Let's simplify it with an example, I see a hat that moves on the table, that is, it identifies the existence of an event, it turns out that under the hat there is a dwarf who moves the hat, can the movement of the dwarf be considered a reason for the existence of a distinct thing? If so, is its existence absolute? But it turns out that the reason for the dwarf's movement is contractions in his leg muscles, can these contractions be considered the cause of something distinct? Do they exist at all? This can be continued ad infinitum, and the absurdity that arises from your definition is clear and sharp, the existence of anything, finite and defined is not absolute, this is exactly the reason that makes it finite and defined, something that exists absolutely is infinite and as such cannot have a reason, but in our world what to do There are finite and definite things, which are themselves the active cause of other finite and definite things, which, otherwise, we would not notice their existence at all.

73. The supposed "contradiction" you present (which I didn't address before because I thought the whole answer was about your invented independence of existence) can only appear to be a contradiction to someone who doesn't read the entire response (which you made sure would happen by quoting it out of context).
    I write there (as you took care to hide) that any conversation about the existence of things that do not have distinct results is pointless to me, and therefore for me - the existence is really only of things that have distinct results.
    Nadav: I'm just fed up with the fact that you have no interest in discussing my issues and all you're trying to achieve in the discussion is to present me in a negative light. Are you really not going to grow up? Can you really not admit that you have learned a lot in this discussion?

74. Nadav:
    It's really embarrassing how you don't understand and it turns out that you never understood my words.
    Existence is an absolute thing and the existence function of something can be time dependent.
    Too bad you embarrass yourself just out of the uncontrollable urge to try to embarrass me.

75. No Michael, the difference is clear
    You claim (and you have claimed in the past) that existence is an absolute thing, without connection or relation to anything else, are you withdrawing from this position?

    It seems to me that Lisa (and any other reader) can see the contradiction screaming from your two sentences that both define existence

    "Ye... in my view there are also existing things that we cannot feel the results of in any way"
    "In my opinion, a thing exists if it is the cause of something distinct"

    It is fine if you also noticed the contradiction and you change the definition now and bring it closer to mine, but then, first of all thank you for changing it and secondly try to explain the existence of the senses, which determine the existence of the other things (and not just discover it as you have always claimed)

76. Here is a quote from response 104 for anyone who has trouble reading:
    "Some things are clear to us that they exist because they are perceived by our senses - we see, hear, smell, touch and taste them.
    We infer the existence of all other things indirectly - relying on their effect on the input of our senses.
    In other words - we infer their existence because they are the cause of the thing whose existence we perceive with our senses."

77. Some people don't even find a detailed explanation helpful.
    I explained precisely that it is the input of our senses (and only ours) because we have no other way to receive information about the world.
    What a difficult and difficult question!

78. Lisa
    Michal's definition of an existing thing is this: "In my opinion, a thing exists if it is the cause of something distinct"
    Distinguished to whom? Distinguished why? Isn't that basically saying that everything that exists is what exists? This is an empty definition and lacks content because it does not describe any relationship between the thing you are trying to define and something of a different nature

79. Lisa:
    I saw your comment just now and I'm rushing to the lecture but when I said "politics exists" I meant that it exists now. After all, I defined the term "sustainability function" which is a function that changes in time. Now there are also minds and that's what they call it so there is no problem. In another billion years there may be no brains and then there will be no politics either. Even a billion years ago there was no politics (at least there was no politics on Earth).

80. I lean more towards Mr. Roschild's definition, although I myself am not sure what my definition is.
    For example, it is difficult for me to understand the following sentence:
    "Politics exists"
    Without having the brain of someone who will perceive human behavior and call it that.

    I think that if the concept of existence is of any value there should definitely be a process of deciding what exists and what doesn't (and science plays a significant role here). I also believe that there may be concepts for which it is very difficult (if not impossible) to decide whether they exist.
    I would replace the distinction between "exists in force" versus "exists in practice" with a distinction between a mental concept that comes to represent or symbolize something in the world and the thing itself that the concept represents.
    When I ask "does X exist"
    This can be interpreted in two ways -
    1. Does the concept X exist
    2. Does what X represents exist?
    In English there is the term "use-mention distinction" I don't know what the equivalent is in Hebrew but this is roughly the diagnosis I am aiming for.

    In order to be able to answer the question of whether X exists, I believe that there should be as complete a match as possible between these two separate things (the concept should faithfully represent the thing itself). What is faithful representation? It should be possible to objectively measure the level of compatibility between things.

81. "Not the brains of both of you" that's for sure, can live up to the title.

82. In any case, I gave my definition of what an imagination is, a false idea, if you disagree, you are welcome to give your own definition of these terms and whoever wants to choose what they think is more correct,
    And if you think there is a difference between the two concepts, then you are also welcome to describe it,
    I don't see how the fact that you laugh in response can serve any constructive purpose 

83. Lisa:
    1. Do you understand what I define as existence?
    2. Do you understand what Nadav defines as existence?
    3. Do you think the position of any of us is consistent?
    4. Do you think the position of any of us contradicts itself?

84. Another false idea that the believer identifies with imagination.

85. Michael:
    Then the joke is on you

86. Nadav:
    I'm not kidding.
    I'm just kidding.

87. Well, what are you kidding, are you intentionally taking things out of context or do you just not understand?
    Well, like little children
    There is no difference between a false idea and imagination - it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned, it's the same concept with different names

    A false idea and what exists are two different things as far as I'm concerned. Here we will also help you with a quote from 103

    ...a round triangle for example cannot exist even by force because in its definition it contains a reason that prevents its existence, i.e. its definition is self-contradictory and therefore it expresses a false idea, just a combination of two words that do not express any attainable essence

88. For me there is no difference... it's two things Different I already explained the difference between them

89. For me there is no difference, there is what you imagine as existing and there is what you achieve as existing, these are two different things, I have already explained the difference between them - see 103

90. And yet there is a huge difference between a false idea and imagination.
    From your words it can be understood that there is no need for the term because wherever they say "false idea" you can say innonsense "Imagination" without losing the meaning. This is a false idea.

91. Hah, Mi-Kal
    All human culture is based on the imagination, literature, poetry, art and even science are inspired by the human imagination
    The importance of false ideas is great and good, as long as a person also has another idea of ​​what is a false idea and what is not.

92. Albert Einstein:
    Imagination is more important than information.
    Conclusion from the new interpretation: a false idea is more important than information.
    For round triangles (false idea) it is possible innonsense Read the triangle analogy

93. Oh boy
    Quote from response 102:
    "I believe that the things that actually exist and the things that exist in power are merely two different expressions of the same thing itself"

94. Lisa,
    A. Politics - exists by force as an idea that unites a totality of things that exist, some in practice and some by force, such as people, political opinions, desires, public structures, etc., the mind unites them all into one idea that it can achieve as existing, but it does not have one object that suits it

    B. Love - exists by force, as a form of thought that expresses some kind of relationship to some object, but again there is no object that has an active cause called love

    third. God - I have already said, if you perceive God as an intelligent thing that is subject to modes of thought, then it has no existence either in practice or by force, this is what is called a false idea, that is, an idea whose definition contains a contradiction and therefore cancels its existence

    d. Jesus - as an ordinary person exists only by force as the son of God, a false idea - regarding the question of whether an object called Jesus ever actually existed is debatable

    God. From poles - existence by force

    and. Time machine - unknown, if it turns out that such a thing cannot be built due to some limitation of the laws of nature, then it is a false idea, if not, then it exists by force

    Z-mboro Patzloh - exists by force, (but you have to use a lot of force to realize its existence 🙂 )

    H - Superposition - exists in practice if it necessarily arises from the nature of the particles, if the mind can explain their behavior in another way that does not contain a contradiction, then the superposition only exists by force, when two contradictory things can be the reason for the existence of a thing and the mind can never know which of them it is The actual existing cause, so both simply exist by force

    By the way, a false idea can simply be called - imagination

95. Nadav:
    Is there a boy named "Zamboro Patzloh"?
    Is there superposition?
    Are you ready to take seriously the flaws in your presentation of things?

96. Nad:
    And what about the list in 103?

    In addition, as a continuation of your answer to 7:
    Okay, so science cannot decide on the existence of things (I actually thought that if anyone could, it would be him).
    Is there a process that can decide?
    If there is no such process, does your concept of existence have any meaning at all?

97. who-as-al
    When I say a concept in some sense I also mean can be deduced as necessarily existing from a given thing
    And within this are also included the mathematics and the laws of nature,

    The definition of intelligence is a concept that is difficult to explain because everything that exists for us is a concept of intelligence, therefore defining the existence of intelligence is paradoxical, as Aristotle said - that cognition cannot be known, just as one cannot hear hearing or see sight, but intelligence exists even if it is difficult for us to define it, even Michael cannot deny this, and the mind has concepts, that is, things it can perceive as some kind of essence, whether it is shape, color, size, ratio, etc., the more developed the mind, the greater the number of concepts it has, total The concepts that can be in a mind that is infinitely developed as far as I am concerned belong to the realm of existing things, things that cannot be understood by any mind, ever, there is no point in discussing them at all

    Lisa
    1 - The cause of a thing presupposes its existence both in time and in space (which for me is the same thing). The way in which, for example, certain bodies are perceived by the mind is when they are limited by a certain pattern in space that delimits them, in the same way things are revealed in our mind as an event when they have a pattern that limits them also in time, which also stems from them

    2- The existence of something does not depend on something that will perceive it, but a thing can only be considered as existing if it has the ability to be a concept of some kind of mind, again this is not about one mind or another but only about the minimum conditions for something to exist, the definition of "Exists"

    4- For everything that exists in practice, and is finite and limited in some way, there is a reason that also exists in practice and is finite and limited in some way
    And so it goes on forever. The fact that the reasons are hidden from our eyes at the moment does not mean that they do not exist or cannot be grasped by any mind.

    5- There are the ideas that exist in the mind and there are the objects of those ideas, when a certain idea corresponds to some object then as far as I am concerned it is the same thing itself, for example a rational God who gets angry and is subject to all kinds of ways of thinking one way or another, this is an idea that does not correspond to any object because it contains A contradiction, a God who is an unlimited and completely free thing that is subject to one way or another of thought, this internal contradiction cancels the existence of such a God just like the round triangle

    7. Existence is a concept of the mind and therefore cannot be determined scientifically, it is not the domain of science at all, science studies the nature of the things that are already perceived by our minds as existing and in the process concludes the existence of other things

98. By the way, Nad, I didn't understand from your answer your attitude towards questions:
    1,2,4,6,7

    I admit that the concept of existence is a bit in the fog for me. Is this really such a necessary concept?

99. Some people define themselves by others.
    I don't know why.
    For example, it is not clear to me why Nadav, in order to say what he thinks, must be based on a contrast with some imaginary Michael that he invents.
    I have never spoken about the ability to achieve things with the mind, but Nadav - to say that for him the ability to achieve things with the mind is a condition - must present it as a contrast in my opinion.
    Well - in my opinion - the ability to be achieved by any intelligence is an indefinite thing because the phrase "any intelligence" is not defined. I try to base definitions on definite things.
    Even given that everything is given and defined - the phrase "perceived by this particular mind" is not defined (at best).
    For example - what exactly is "being in superposition"? It's a property that particles have, it's a property that we use in physical calculations, and it's an incomprehensible property because the same mind that thinks it's impossible to be a triangle and a circle at the same time - will also think that it's impossible to be in two places at the same time (or, to be both a particle and a wave at the same time).
    So do superpositions exist?
    From the opposite direction, I can imagine a child whose parents gave him the name "Zamboro Patzloh".
    Is it true to say that such a child exists?
    True - it exists by force but in practice it does not exist, therefore existence by force and existence in practice are not the same thing.
    Now, it is possible that Nadav - just to exaggerate my words - will name his son Zamboro Patzloh, but even that will not help because at the time of writing these lines there is no child with that name. You are welcome to check.
    So who is confused here (forgive me for the phrase but I'm just copying it)?

    In my first response to Lisa's words, I tried to stick to his questions, but I wanted to reiterate the importance of the third question to me.
    There are things that are clear to us that they exist because they are perceived by our senses - we see, hear, smell, touch and taste them.
    We infer the existence of all other things indirectly - relying on their effect on the input of our senses.
    In other words - we infer their existence because they are the cause of the thing whose existence we perceive with our senses.
    Since things that do not exist cannot be the cause of existing things, we must accept the existence of all things that are causes of the existence of things whose existence we have already accepted.
    This is a recursive definition, of course.
    The space of existing things is causally closed - that is - it includes all the causes of all existing things.
    Everything that is included in this space - either its causes are also in the space - or it has no causes.

    A. Politics exists
    B. Love exists
    third. God (as defined in the various religions) does not exist
    d. Jesus does not exist today but probably existed in the past. However, many of the things attributed to him did not exist and were not created
    God. Mammoths (animals) do not exist but they existed in the past and if projects to create animals from the DNA found are successful - maybe they will exist again in the future.
    and. Time machines don't exist and I don't think they ever will

100. Good. Are the following present:

     A. politics
     B. Love
     third. God
     d. jesus
     God. from poles
     and. time Machine

     I would love more ideas

101. Hello Lisa, I answered everything together 🙂

     For me, existence is anything that expresses some essence that can be grasped by any mind as a definite and definite thing - of course this does not mean that existence needs this or that mind in order to exist, but something that cannot be expressed as an idea by any mind (any mind) cannot be considered to exist
     For me there are two types of existence

     For a thing that has an active reason for its existence - actually exists and manifests itself in other things that actually exist (and is also their cause as well as being its cause) and on the contrary something that has no active reason for its existence does not actually exist, this is the physical world

     B. Anything that does not have any reason that prevents its existence exists by force, for example the idea of ​​a triangle exists by force and although there may not be any active reason in the universe for the creation of a perfect triangle, it can be perceived as an idea in the mind - a round triangle for example cannot also exist by force because by definition it contains a reason that prevents the Its existence, i.e. its definition is self-contradictory and therefore it expresses a false idea, just a combination of two words that do not express any attainable essence

     I believe that the things that actually exist and the things that exist by force are in total two different expressions of the same thing itself which is the only thing whose essence is to exist, I of course do not think like Michael that there can be existing things that could never in any scenario or possibility be perceived as existing by the intellect Such a statement stems from a confusion that turns existence into an essence, that is, into a feature of one thing or another
     I always imagine an example of a bubble of emptiness inside some substance, this bubble can be perceived as existing, but it receives its existence from the substance in which it exists, which also receives its existence from another thing that limits and defines it and so on ad infinitum, every finite and defined thing exists inside something else which is also final and defined

102. Nadav
     Time was created, that's a fact. That's what Stephen Hawking said and you can already find it in the theory of relativity.

103. OK. Nad, what about you?

     I will try to present my intuitive understanding of the concept of existence.
     I'm not sure how much these things agree with modern physics (I'm quite afraid they don't, in modern physics everything is quite counterintuitive...) but I understood the world as follows:
     There are two basic concepts - time and space (which I do not define). And there is the concept of "material" which is defined by the "function of existence" if I use the same term - a mapping from time and space to 1 and 0 (maybe also intermediate values?).
     Beyond that there are the "laws of the game" or the "laws of nature" that define how matter changes over time.
     The "matter" is what "exists" according to this view.

     Does space exist? Does time exist? Do the laws exist? Somehow my feeling is that the question is not defined because the term existence as I defined it depends on these terms. There is a certain circularity here…

104. Lisa:
     Phil 🙂 – beautiful image!
     I guess this is a difficult question to answer precisely but I thought about it once and came to certain conclusions.
     1. In my opinion the term "exists" does not depend on the term time, even though certain things (like me, for example, unfortunately) exist at certain times and do not exist at others. In a world where there is time, it is possible to define an existence function for an entity that receives the value 1 when the entity exists and zero when it does not exist.
     There are entities whose existence value is permanently one (like time itself) and there are entities whose existence value is permanently zero (like the Archangel Michael). There are also entities whose standing value changes over time (like, as mentioned, the human Michael).
     The function depends on time, but the values ​​it receives - by themselves (zero and one or "exists" and "does not exist") do not depend on time.
     2. In my opinion - by no means.
     3. This question is in my opinion the most important. In my opinion, a thing exists if it is the cause of something distinct. A thing does not exist if its existence necessarily constitutes a cause for a phenomenon that is distinguished as being untrue. As a principle, in my opinion, there may also be existing things whose results we cannot sense in any way, but even though their existence is possible - there is no point in discussing the question of whether they exist or not.
     The meaning of "being a reason for something" needs to be refined here. Someone could argue that God exists because he is the cause of many wars but that would not be accurate. The reason for the wars is the belief in God and not God himself. Therefore, belief in God exists (currently) for sure but God (as the monotheistic religions describe him) does not exist.
     4. I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that particles can't be created from a vacuum. This aligns with my existence test and requires defining the laws of nature as "applicable" or existing things. In other words - matter can be created from a vacuum because there are laws of nature that allow (and even require) this.
     5. In my opinion - not necessarily. I can't think of a reason for mathematics, but mathematics - being a reason for distinct things (see my previous response) - by definition exists.
     6. It is clear what my opinion is here. There are things that exist even though no one thinks about them. In fact, most of what is in the universe existed even before the existence of man and before the existence of thought. There are - of course - also "applicables" that are thought - whether true thought or delusional thought. They also exist and have distinct results.
     7. In the definition I gave to the matter, there are scientific tools - at least in principle.

105. Nad, Michael:

     Let's talk about the elephant in the room:

     Is each of you ready to define how you see the term "existence" of something (what does it mean to determine the fact that something "exists")?

     I'm not even sure I know what the phrase means. A few questions that pop into my head related to the topic:
     1. Does the term "exist" depend on the term "time" (which probably requires considerable discussion in itself)
     2. Does the existence of something depend on someone to "perceive" its existence
     3. Does the existence of something require the effect of something on its environment (does something exist that does not affect its environment at all? That is, it is not detectable by any device)
     4. Can "is" be created "is" from "nothing"?
     5. Does every "there" have a reason (another of the terms that require explanation)? Or in another wording, does every "has" have a factor that brought it to its state at a given time
     6. Is there room for a distinction between what is "changed" and the concept that represents the thing itself in our minds? For example God (which I think does not exist) and "God" as a concept (which I think does exist). Doesn't mathematics belong to the second type? Which brings us to question number 2
     7. Are there scientific tools for deciding between "existing" and "not existing"?

106. For those who are interested in the subject and are open to logic, it is recommended to think about the number i (the root of minus one).
     This is an example of a mathematical entity that has no representation in the physical world, but because mathematics does not need the physical world, it can be used in calculations and reach results with physical meaning.
     This is of course a consequence of the fact that mathematics is one and the limits of the material world do not apply to it.

107. Comparison with religious people is not an argument, so it is clear that its entire purpose is an insult. You can keep trying to claim otherwise but it won't change anything.

108. Michal, I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm just saying my opinion, the very fact that my opinion on mathematics represents an attempt to hurt you only confirms the thought that this issue comes from an emotional place for you, even if it's a logical one, that

109. Nadav:
     I don't care what you think religious people do and I won't stop breathing just because religious people breathe. This comparison to the religious was also irrelevant and its entire purpose was an insult.
     As I said - you convinced me that you won't understand and I stop making an effort about it.

110. Michal, I promise you that I had no conscious thought of hurting you when I said that you were contradicting yourself, you simply decided to treat the concept of eternity as one thing and the word eternity as another, but you did not reveal this to anyone
     Regarding ideas, I have already explained, there is no meaning to one plus one = two when there is nothing real that can be perceived as a single thing, the fact that there is such a specific thing that can be perceived as a single thing and the generalization (or reduction) of the specific thing to the idea we call - one, are part From the same existence, they cannot be separated,
     This insistence on taking something out of our world and giving it a status beyond our world is exactly the action that religious people do in order to invent for themselves a God that exists by itself, mathematics does not exist by itself, it exists here, in all real, physical space and is an inseparable part of it

     Eliran, how can you say that time was created? You understand that this is completely paradoxical, unless you mean that time is always created, which is the same as saying that time simply exists, the same with matter.

111. Nadav:
     After all, I brought Euclidean geometry for a definite reason which I explained and you made the matter a trap for yourself.
     The laws of nature are not temporary.
     It is our understanding of them that changes but they themselves are constant.
     This is at least the basic premise of the entire scientific enterprise.
     We use mathematics to describe them - not only because it allows it - but also because we know that it is also constant and will not suddenly change for us.
     When our understanding changes we again use mathematics to describe it.
     I asked you if Euclidean geometry still exists and what the "correctness" of a theorem in Euclidean geometry means. That's why I brought the whole story and you didn't address it at all.
     It is not the same as ideas - at least not in the interpretation you give the word.
     The idea that one plus one equals three also exists, but it is an idea that is not true - not only in our world but in every possible world. Also the idea that Euclidean geometry is just another idea exists as an idea, but this idea is also not true.
     On the other hand, the idea that if space is Euclidean and if a circle is defined as it is defined then two circles can intersect each other in two points at most is a correct idea.

     I am not contradicting myself and stop using phrases that are not accurate just to offend.
     I have already understood that the concept of "eternity" in the meaning of "from time minus infinity to time plus infinity" is a concept that does not correspond to what science believes in today (by the way - personally I have a feeling that it will change but it is not relevant to our case) and therefore I use the term "eternity" To describe things that are temporary - that are true even if there is no time and that they are true all the time.
     When I said that the word "eternity" has no meaning, I meant the accepted meaning of the word - the one you use.
     I'm sure you knew that and inserted the "contradiction" claim just to offend.
     Matter is not "temporary" and time is not "temporary".

112. Who is God?

     Euclidean geometry rather emphasizes the syntheticity of the split between "eternal laws" and "temporary things", as if there is a real difference between them, apart from the difference that our mind perceives
     Euclidean geometry describes an entire physical order that turns out to be only a partial image of the physical order of the universe itself, just as the idea of ​​a perfect circle symbolizes the idea of ​​a shape that does not necessarily exist in nature, so does a circle exist? It is clear that it exists, but the idea of ​​the circle and the round things that appear in nature are all expressions of the same thing, none of them exists "more" than the other and neither exists without the other, simply because it is the nature of the circle to express itself in both bodies and ideas and it always will

     You also contradict yourself when you say on the one hand that time is not eternal and on the other hand you glorify Tegmark's theory which says that time is part of a mathematical structure and is therefore eternal, after all such a mathematical structure will always be possible right?

     As for the material law, this is just cleverness - "obliging not to" is simply misleading

     But let's stop here, because it's not going anywhere

113. Nadav
     What are you actually saying, that matter is eternal? We know this is not so and the progenitor of matter was created in the big bang. It also changes on the timeline, has wear and tear and apparently also an end point, at least a possible end point, if we approach a black hole for example.
     You don't have a more fundamental change than turning absence into something.

     Mathematics is independent of time, matter is time dependent and therefore time is created together with matter.

114. If material = animals
     And math = life
     So my conclusion is that death = antimatter

115. Nadav:
     I didn't say "depends" and you said I said "depends".
     I did not claim that matter is not eternal, but the conclusions of contemporary physical research are such.
     The interesting thing is that the same study also leads to the conclusion that time is not eternal or in other words - that the word "eternity" has no meaning at all!
     This is what is beautiful about Tagmark's theory and this is what I tried to make clear to you when I explained that according to this theory time "exists" in our universe only because a mathematical structure in which one of the dimensions is the dimension of time and in which the other properties of the universe that we discover (such as the property of having space) exist is possible.
     In other words - he says that apart from mathematics there is simply nothing.

     I'm not saying this (and I'm not saying the opposite either) but I'm pretty tired of repeating things because you don't answer anything I say (remember Euclidean geometry? I almost forgot I brought up the point because whenever you encounter some difficulty that you don't know how to deal with you squirm in a different direction and a lot of words to forget the matter).

     The law of matter in interpretation requires something outside the range between minus one and one.
     He requires that there be no substance.
     But I already said that and I won't drag you into an endless loop.

116. Michael
     Okay, maybe you didn't say depends, but you claim that matter is subject to the laws of mathematics and that matter is not eternal but mathematics is eternal, thus you create the hierarchy between matter and mathematics, and then you claim that it is not

     The essence of a thing is what obligates it and not what excludes it
     As far as you are concerned, your law of matter is when T is greater than one, then not only is there no matter, but there is also no summer (which is a different type of matter) and there is also no more timeline, no thought, and more space and three spaghetti monsters, and endless things that can calculate exist

     The law of matter works, or requires something, only when T is less than one or greater than 1 and that is its essence

     And regardless, this is a bad example also because we cannot at all say that T exists in values ​​that are greater than 1 and less than 1, simply because time is revealed to be real only in matter and not in anything else

     But really this discussion is going nowhere so let's agree to disagree

117. Eliran,

     The definition of eternal is not something that does not change, but something whose essence does not change, things can change but as soon as they change their essence they are already something else and therefore cannot be considered eternal, this is exactly the definition of essence - something that if you take it away from something it has already ceased to be This thing

     Material not created! It simply exists and mathematics does not create it, it is inherent and it is inherent in it, just like thoughts, what we see as the formation of something is merely changes on the timeline, how can you say that matter is created if without matter there is nothing that changes or depends on time? Or in space? What mathematical law depends on time to create matter? After all, mathematics in its essence does not depend on time, so every mathematical law in its essence should also be independent of time

118. Nadav:
     Maybe we will stay in the realm of truth?
     Can you tell me where I said that the existence of matter depends on mathematics?
     You decide without any justification that "the law of matter takes its essence" at a certain time.
     Perhaps you could define for us what the action of "getting an essence" is?
     I'll forgive you for missing the point that T has to be between minus one and one to be matter, but the law of matter in interpretation makes a claim also regarding the time when the absolute value of T is greater than one! He says then there is no substance! Why do you decide that it is precisely between minus one and one that it "receives essence"?

     In general - the world you propose is a world that is in contradiction to the world that is revealed to our eyes.
     After all, according to you, all times are the same and therefore they all had to be the same and nothing could happen!
     The only thing in our world that is consistent with your claim is that despite all the time that has passed this discussion has not progressed an inch.

     Lisa:
     My argument with Nadav is not from today and when I say that he has a tendency to define things that he does not understand as a logical fallacy of others it is because he has such a tendency.
     Since he has already done this to me several times - I have the right to be angry. It doesn't lower the level of discussion - what lowers it are comments like yours that apart from an ugly attack have nothing in them.

119. Landav (77)
     Why do you believe that when mathematics causes matter to appear, that matter will be eternal? The non-definition of eternal is unchanging on the axis of time, and if so everything that has ever been created has undergone change. The only thing that can be said to be eternal is the thing that has not undergone any change = was never created = has always existed. This thing is math.
     By and large I would agree with you that thought can also fall into this category, the problem is that thoughts as we know them today are dependent on matter, ie the thinking person. If we succeed in separating the (material) person from thought, we can continue to assume that thought is also eternal.

120. To Mr. Roschild (79):
     From your words:
     "You tend to label things you don't understand as logical fallacies but I promise you that in any objective test of logic I will leave you far behind."

     How do you always degrade the discussion to such vile ones?

     (Here, a little boost to your damaged ego: Your logic is immense! It is the greatest logic I have ever seen! It must be a great burden to have such an immense logic! You are the most logical person who ever walked the face of the earth! If there is anything eternal it is logic Yours! Now can we continue the discussion please?)

121. I definitely agree with you that it is portrayed as hopeless

     When someone claims that mathematics does not depend on matter but that matter depends and is subject to mathematics, he is definitely claiming an ontological hierarchy between mathematics and matter
     But when he also claims that he doesn't claim so then it's really hopeless

     A beautiful example that illustrates exactly your failure,
     Definition - an eternal thing is something whose essence does not change over time, because when the essence of a thing changes, it is no longer the thing itself but something completely different

     Let's call Y=1-t^2 the law of matter
     What is the essence of the law of matter? Is this the thing responsible for creating matter?
     If so the law of matter receives its essence only when T is between 0 and 1, why then call it an eternal thing?
     What essence does the law of matter have when it does not produce anything?
     What defines its reality? After all, it is expressed only in the area between 0 and 1 and from it is derived the thought that continues it to infinity in every direction, does the mere fact that you can think about something make it real and actually exist? If so then beware of the spaghetti monster

122. In my opinion, what I defined is a fundamental problem. Models of a phenomenon that require a high level of accuracy at all scales are very difficult to create and have enormous computational complexity. I don't currently know of any models of this type. Even if we take a simple example of a collection of atoms from even one element and ask what is the crystal structure we will get from connecting them together and what are its mechanical properties, today it is not possible to answer such a simple question using a model. Intentions and estimates can be accepted, but no more, not to mention if we take a number of atoms and try to calculate the unit cell in the crystal. A biological system like the body is tens of times more complex and the brain even more so. My claim does not prove non-programmability, but I believe that today science is unable to create a reasonable model of a complex system (lack of computing power and appropriate algorithms).

123. Speaking of logical failures, let's look at a phenomenon that depends on time and receives at time T the value Y according to the following relationship: Y=1-T^2
     Assume that matter exists if and only if Y is greater than zero.
     Would it be justified to claim in this situation that because time causes the formation of matter at a certain moment then it always causes it?
     But if matter does not always exist, while they are time, both the law that determines the value of Y and the law that states that matter exists if and only if Y is greater than zero always exist - how does this fit with Nadav's claim in response 77 according to which:
     "An eternal thing is something that is not subject to time, that is, time has no effect on its essential nature, suppose there is an eternal thing whose essential nature is not to bring matter into existence, then it cannot be that at some point on the timeline it will change its nature and create matter, if its nature is to cause its existence of matter, then he will create it from victory to eternity and then of course the matter will also be an eternal thing itself"

     I hope that even though I have used this example here, no one will try to attribute to me a belief that this is how the world works, but since things have already happened in the past, I find it appropriate to emphasize nevertheless, to anyone who decides to attribute such a belief to me:
     No! I do not think that the conditions I have described here are the realistic conditions for the existence of the substance.

124. Nadav:
     It's probably hopeless because everything you say about my opinion makes it more clear to me that you don't understand it.
     I am not claiming anything about a hierarchy between mathematics and matter.
     I do not rule out such a hierarchy but I do not claim that it exists.
     You tend to call things you don't understand logical fallacies but I promise you that in any objective test of logic I will leave you far behind.
     The fact that you are willing to find support for Tegmark's theory when you previously put mathematics at the same level as you put thoughts is still progress. I guess in your thoughts you still see something bounded by time.
     You need to understand another thing about Tegmark's theory and that is that time in this theory is also a product of the mathematical possibility of a space with a time dimension and within this theory time has no meaning for "eternity".

125. Sorry - Liran = Eliran

126. Eliran, I don't assume that, I assume exactly the opposite, mathematics and matter are dependent on each other and they actually express the same thing, there is no reason to split them and arrange them in a hierarchy of more existing and less existing, I just thought that you hold the same opinion as Michael, which is that mathematics It is the only eternal thing and it actually exists within itself, but from your answer later I see that you recognize the fallacy in this assumption and do not hold the same opinion

     Regarding the thought that there could be another eternal thing from which another thing whose nature is finite like matter arises, there is exactly the same problem
     An eternal thing is something that is not subject to time, that is, time has no effect on its essential nature, suppose there is an eternal thing whose essential nature is not to bring matter into existence, then it cannot be that at some point on the timeline it will change its nature and create matter, if its nature is to cause the existence of material, then he will create it from victory to eternity and then of course the material will also be an eternal thing itself

     Regarding Tagmark's theory, which is based on the assumption that All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically
     Not only does it not deal with the "appearance of matter" but it strengthens my claim that matter is eternal just like mathematics and has no lower degree of existence than it, these are simply two ways of expressing the same thing

127. I read the link, I understood +- what it says. I am saying that on the same doctrine that you put here, it is possible to give another explanation for the appearance of matter even if we accept the matter around us as modern physics defines it.

128. Eliran:
     Read Tagmark's words (note that his name in my response is a link to the Wikipedia entry that discusses him).
     His proposition is that everything we experience as matter or as ourselves is nothing but a mathematical structure.
     Again - I do not claim that this is true, but it does deal with the "appearance" of the material.

129. To Micha-L
     Maybe there is a state of the world where there is nothing but mathematics. But this given situation as mentioned does not explain the appearance of the material. I believe that in order to answer the question of the formation of matter we have to assume that there was something else in the world along with mathematics, which has the same characteristics of mathematics (in terms of eternity) and which, unlike mathematics, actually embodied a potential for the appearance of matter.

130. Eliran:
     In my opinion, Nadav is indeed very wrong, but I wanted to comment on the matter of the "potential" you mentioned.
     You should read what he thinks Max Tagmark on the matter
     In his opinion, there may be nothing in the world but mathematics!
     I don't claim that this is the case, but I think it's a very interesting thought and for now it's really the only logical proposal for a theory that answers all the questions like how everything was created, how it is that there is anything at all, and the like.

131. Nadav
     Why do you need to assume that mathematics is what made matter possible? She simply preceded him chronologically, but has nothing to do with the appearance of the material. What did affect the appearance of the material? A subject for discussion, but mathematics, by virtue of being a theoretical-exact theory, does not have the potential to influence the appearance of matter.

132. Flowering guest:
     I am sorry to remind you that you did not read my words or did not understand them.
     In one of the responses I even explicitly separated mathematics from thinking about mathematics.
     The thought of mathematics depends on the material but the mathematics does not depend on it.
     I brought to these many proofs that both you and Nadav simply ignore.
     As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in repeating things that have been proven that you don't read.

133. who-as-al

     I asked you two subsequent questions from the beginning (response 16)

     1. Why do you give mathematics a higher existential status than that of matter?
     2. If you have already given it this status, then what prevents you from giving thoughts the same status?
     For thoughts are also revealed when matter is arranged in a certain way just like mathematical values

     Already for the first question you did not give any convincing explanation, there is no reason to assume that the possible worlds could exist by force if the only world did not actually exist, on the contrary it is only required that in order for there to be possible worlds there must be at least one actual world, in which these worlds can be perceived as a possibility.

     Of course, there is no point in going to the second question when your explanation does not pass the first hurdle at all.

     Eliran:

     If matter is not eternal and mathematics is eternal, then all that was in the beginning was only mathematics, but mathematics by its definition is absolute eternal and unchanging, so why would it suddenly allow the appearance of matter?
     Do you really not see the absurdity?

134. I came here by accident, thank you for the interesting discussion! I refrain from being pushed into this discussion, I'll just point out that in simple logic, the claim that "mathematical formulas are independent of matter, so they have nothing to prevent them from calculating eternity" sounds completely absurd to me. If the person asserting this claim did not have a (material) brain, this claim would not have been born and certainly could not be attributed to eternal mathematics. I regret to remind the claimant that with his inevitable material death his claim will also die with him and the eternity of his mathematics will fly to the heights or perhaps be buried in the ground. And when the human race is destroyed, mathematics will be destroyed with it and its 'eternity' will be extinguished which was ephemeral in the first place, due to the fact that it is a human creation dependent on a mind of flesh and blood that is transient.
     By the way, to *Kal, check yourself also regarding the wording of the comments. Your response to this article definitely has a condescending and condescending tone towards the author. And I know neither you nor him. But if there is a need for a special code on this site to protect you from defamation - a question arises as to why exactly your comments 'invite' hostile comments that require individual filtering.
     Bottom line: Thanks again for a very interesting discussion.

135. Ehud (67):
     "Do you think it would be possible to use a model of the body to examine the effect of drugs on humans"
     Given a sufficiently accurate model, I believe so. This is qualitatively no different from simulations of complex systems that exist today. The difference is quantitative (this simulation will be much more complex). As mentioned, I have no reason to think that this is impossible.
     The interesting question is what is the lowest level that the simulation will need to simulate in order to be reliable enough - will the cell level be enough? Will we have to go down to the molecular level? the atoms? and so'
     The question of differences between people that you raise is definitely also an interesting question. At what level are the differences expressed between different people? Good question. (Perhaps a description of the DNA will be enough for us to run the simulation. The program receives input from Ehud's DNA code and outputs his reaction to the drugs - this does not sound far-fetched to me)
     Regarding your question, would I be willing to try a drug that was approved in this way - this seems to me a much more reliable way than, for example, taking a drug that was tested on mice.
     Many interesting questions... By the way, I believe that in order to simulate many of the cognitive activities it is not necessary to go down to the level of the neuron. The approach taken by Professor Idan Segev can certainly produce a simulation of a human brain, but this is not a "brute force" solution to the problem. When we better understand the mechanisms of human thinking, I believe we will be able to understand thinking at a much higher level (at the level of cognitive processes that occur in the brain)

136. Liza

     I will try to explain my intention more clearly, for that I will focus on the human body, a fairly complex system, although in my opinion less complex than the human brain. Let's now assume that they managed to build a model of the human body with all its systems. Do you think it would be possible to use a model of the body to examine the effect of drugs on humans. First, it will be necessary to model the virus and the drug on a molecular level; second, it will be necessary to understand the effect of the drug from the molecular level on the level of the functional systems. Is the medicine not poison? Tests must be carried out both at the chemical level and at the level that the drug may damage the functioning of the respiratory system, for example. That is, do not make a separation between the levels, you must examine all of them, do not make reductions. Also, we have not yet discussed the differences between different people, i.e. allergies to different drugs, etc... Would you be willing to try a drug that was approved by testing it using a model only? In my opinion, this question is much simpler than the study of recognition...

137. Nadav:
     All your words before led to the conclusion that you are complaining that I give mathematics a special status in relation to thoughts. The quote you brought from your own words also implies this because otherwise - why do the thoughts even appear in the sentence?
     Read for example your response 36. The name of the material does not appear at all!
     Response 23 also asks about the difference between mathematics and thoughts.
     Also, all my reference to your words on the topic of mathematics - throughout the discussion - was in relation to the status of mathematics compared to thoughts, and if from the beginning you wanted to talk about the status of mathematics in relation to matter, you should have commented on this a long time ago.
     Anyway, I also said that mathematics is accepted as the study of the possible worlds while physics is the study of the existing world.
     Since the existing world is only one of the possible worlds, there is no possibility that mathematics will depend on it.
     I also explained that pure mathematics speaks of entities that are themselves mathematical and has no need for any material.
     In fact, the link between mathematics and the material world is always a link made retrospectively by fitting (not always correctly) a mathematical model to the material reality.
     A familiar example of this is the example of Euclidean geometry.
     Do you think Euclidean geometry exists?
     According to the Greek sages, it represented space in physical reality (by the way - in physical reality there is also space. Is space, in your opinion, matter?).
     Einstein came and explained to us that Euclidean geometry does not at all represent the world we live in and yet we can (many times - to the extent of Godel's incompleteness theorem) decide whether a sentence in Euclidean geometry is "true".
     What is the meaning of this decision if it has no equivalent in the physical world?
     Its meaning is, of course, that we know that Euclidean geometry does not depend on the physical world and it is possible to determine what is true in it and what is not, without having anything to do with the physical world.
     The correctness simply derives from the mathematical definition of the entities in which they deal and the axioms of geometry and logic.

138. Nadav
     Allow me to disagree with you on this as well: matter is not eternal in any sense, it has never been, you can date its entry into physical history (13.7 billion years, in the Big Bang.) It is certainly not eternal in terms of the future, it is a perishable thing. (Although You can argue that there is no certainty that it will decay, but it certainly can decay, unlike a mathematical formula which cannot) Mathematical formulas are independent of matter, so they have no obstacle to calculate eternity.

139. Michael, we will be precise

     I argued that mathematics is not entitled to a special status compared to the physical existence - matter and not compared to thoughts
     Here is from response 16

     "Why is the basis of thoughts nothing but matter, but the basis of mathematics is beyond matter? After all, both thoughts and mathematics exist in their own space and are expressed in matter"

     As far as I am concerned, the material or the physical being is eternal, there will always be something and there has always been something with a physical expression, this thing changes, evolves, divides, spreads but always remains, it is eternal, this is the same status you give to mathematics.

     If you claim that mathematics is the only eternal thing, then you are creating an absurdity that cannot be greater in my opinion

     Here she had mathematics happily existing by itself, with an infinite number of mathematical laws and entities, and then suddenly at some time material was created in it? Mathematical entities suddenly became physical entities, by virtue of which law?

     If the existence of a physical existence is derived from mathematics, doesn't that mean that the physical existence is also a mathematical existence? And if so, then doesn't that mean that the physical entities exist just like any mathematical entity?

     Your claim cancels itself out and the demand to see mathematics in a higher existential status than matter leads to the conclusion that mathematics and matter are the same thing

     Therefore, it is much simpler to state that matter is eternal, and so are the laws and forces that act on it, the separation is completely imaginary and for me it belongs to the category of incorrect thoughts that exist in force and in practice

140. Lahud (59):
     What is clear to you is not clear to me at all.
     "Can you imagine a model of the brain that would not need nerve cells" Yes. I do imagine such a model.
     There are already scientists working on it:
     http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3359876,00.html

     For your questions:
     "If it is possible to talk about systems in the human body in a separate way without dependence or are all the systems related to each other? Can the digestive or respiratory system be described without the vascular system?"
     You have made an arbitrary choice here of systems that no one claims that the separation between levels applies. No one claimed that the digestive system consisted of the circulatory system. How does this relate to the separation between levels?
     If anything, these are systems that function side by side in the hierarchy of levels.
     If we still connect it to the subject in question: the various systems in the body have a functional description that corresponds to a certain description level. For example, the heart is an organ that can be described as a blood pump. Are you claiming that it will not be possible to replace the heart with an artificial heart? Does every heart have to be composed of appropriate? What about an artificial hand?

141. Nadav
     You talk about legality, an axiom is absolute and does not depend on any objects. When you say that one plus one is two, you don't have to assume that two objects stand in sequence and create the result, even if there are no objects in the cosmos at all, the sentence remains true. Take the Pythagorean Theorem for a lesson, is it necessary to create triangles in order for the theorem to be true? It exists and stands on the illumination level in its own right and not on top of physical objects.

142. Eliran, I copied you from my previous response to Michael

     A law by its definition applies to something other than it, if there is no "something other than it" there is no possibility to even define a law and certainly not to give it the status of actual existence, for one and one and one to be two there must be something that can express a single thing

     One is an idea of ​​a single thing, a single thing exists and therefore the idea also exists

143. Nadav:
     I did not say that the mathematical legality cannot be a part of something else that is also eternal although I am not aware of anything other than mathematics that today can be claimed to be eternal.
     All I said was that contrary to any thoughts - the math was always right.
     In any case, the claim that mathematics is maybe part of a wider thing does not belong in the discussion.
     You claimed that mathematics is not entitled to a special status compared to thoughts and I explained that the fact that it is always true, even without being a thought, entitles it to a special status.

144. Liza

     To my claim that there is no clear separation of scales: can you think of a model of the brain that would not need nerve cells for comparison, there are models in physics for the atom that do not need to be defined by kerks. This is just one example, but you can think of many. In biological systems it is often not possible to produce complex objects that do not depend on their component or each other. Is it possible to talk about systems in the human body in a separate way without dependence or are all the systems related to each other? Can the digestive or respiratory system be described without the vascular system?

     Regarding optimization, I agree that even in the structure of the computer there is randomness, but not at all close to the one that prevails in biological systems that have evolved over millions of years. The computer was created to perform certain actions, while a biological system uses what it has to deal with a new challenge, for example changing environmental conditions

145. Landav (57)
     Exoima that one plus one equals two is an absolute and independent thing, why do you think it needs the existence of something in order to exist?

146. Michael - It is understandable to me that what materialized was materialized in a certain mathematical form and legality, but one should not conclude from this that it materialized only after the legality already existed, it is much simpler to say that both the legality and what is physical exist together, the fact that the legality is eternal and exists at all times does not mean that it exists does not depend on anything, it can exist as part of something else that is also eternal

147. Nadav:
     For you there is no need for that, but it does not change the fact that one plus one has always been two and will continue to be two after the death of the last person.
     On the other hand, the thought that one plus one equals three, which does not describe a mathematical fact, was not, is not and will not be true. It existed as a thought in force before there were humans but it did not materialize and could not materialize as a true claim in nature.

148. Who is God?

     For me, there is no need or reason to split mathematics from everything that exists and give it a different ontological status, it exists and physical existence exists at the same time (or at the same time), the separation between the two exists only in human thought, mathematics does not apply to mathematical entities, it applies to physical entities , mathematical entities are only representations (ideas) of physical entities in human thought

     You assume the actual existence of many entities that do not need to exist, what is wrong with the physical entities? I think they do the job very well

     Beyond that, there is something a bit transcendental about this split that I don't connect with at all, it seems to me that it's more a type of your belief and not a clear logical claim

     But again, I don't think we will reach any agreement on the issue

149. Ori:
     It's not delusional.
     There was a really good reason for that.
     Most of the discussions that caused this have been deleted and what remains is only the mechanism that may help prevent the development of such discussions in the future.

150. Lahud (45):

     What makes you conclude that in biological systems there is no separation of scales?
     Here are a few I can think of:
     Cells, organs, animals, groups of animals.
     What do you mean by there being no common language between the different levels?
     You talked about the fact that talking about chemistry in terms of the physical level is unnecessary - this is indeed the key word!
     The reductionist approach says that the phenomena at the higher levels will always have an explanation in terms of the lower levels. The important distinction is that the explanation at the lower levels will sometimes be more complicated. Most of the time the high level explanation will be a more efficient and comprehensive explanation for the phenomena that occur at the high level, but not always.
     Let's look at the example of psychology that Marom talks about, which claims to give an explanation for human behavior.
     We all like to think on this level when we analyze human behavior (for example "this person did such and such because I pissed him off yesterday") and indeed most of the time this explanation is sufficient. But now we know that much of the activity that we pretended to explain at the psychological level has a more exhaustive explanation at the level of the functioning of neural networks in the brain (for example in schizophrenia patients). When people take psychoactive drugs their behavior changes - there is no psychological explanation for this, but a purely biological explanation.

     You also claimed that:
     "While a computer is an engineering system designed to solve certain questions optimally, the brain is a product of evolution"
     First, evolution can also be seen as an optimization process, secondly, the computer that you know today can also be seen as a product of an evolutionary process (and it is far from being the optimal solution - wait a few years and you will mediate).

151. Michael, I can't believe it, but you seem to be right, I made several attempts in old articles here (it doesn't seem like it would bother anyone) I tried to send the exact same text, several times, when each time I wrote a different name as part of the text, all the names were received immediately, only messages that contained the name Yours has been delayed and is awaiting approval... It's just crazy what's going on here.

152. sympathetic:
     As you know - in my opinion there is a difference between constructive criticism that points out mistakes and inaccuracies and criticism that only expresses a mood.
     Ada Yonat is not the only scientist in the world and most people are hurt by people speaking in condemnation of them and not dealing with their claims.
     This is what this article does and although the example of alchemy actually plays against the author's words - it is clear that it is intended to insult and it is also clear that it does not contribute any relevant information (and by the way - I did not find any contribution of relevant information in the entire article).
     You can certainly advise scientists not to shy away from criticism - even if it is insulting and personal, but you must also consider the following two facts:
     1. Most scientists won't see your advice
     2. Even those who will see it or think about it themselves - will not always be able to apply it because as we know - emotions and not only logic play a role in the activity of human beings and scientists are - first and foremost - human beings.

153. Ori:
     I guess now you understand why my name is being twisted.
     There is usually no hint or intention here - this is done simply to overcome the fact that the site's automatic filtering system filters out responses containing my name and delays them for human review - this review is necessary because for a long time people who were angry at my words tended to attack me personally instead of dealing with Argumentative.
     It doesn't happen that often anymore but the system still remembers.

154. Michael

     I apologize if my criticism offended you, that was not the intention. My intention was to show that in Korat it is part of a discussion on a certain topic and it should not be ignored or try to belittle its value by pronouns such as "steam". My argument about condescension arose from the fact that you choose to speak on behalf of scientists, in my opinion a scientist working in a certain field formulates a position for him regarding the field regardless of what the public thinks about the field, politicians and even experts in the field so that criticism does not harm scientists and if it is objective it makes them think. Sometimes criticism is baseless, an example of this is the story of Ada Yonat, who was told by all the experts in her field that the ribosome could not be synthesized, but she chose to ignore her criticism and finally succeeded in the task. By the way, also at the institute, the president of the institute chose to ignore the criticism of Yonat's work, that after several different work she had no results and the experts in her field (crystallography) said that her ambition was impossible and despite all this he continued to budget for her. The conclusion in my opinion is that you should not be afraid of criticism and you should not avoid giving it when necessary (also on articles in Odyssey...).

155. Michael you would have already given a link, here is your friend giving the lecture on the train:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXUyWlkacSE

     (It is not clear why they chose to show only a small part of the lecture and not the whole thing)

156. Why do some writers here distort Michael's name and write it as "Mich-El" or "Mi*Kal" and the like, is this a joke? Is this a message you are trying to convey? What's the Deal?

157. sympathetic:
     I am really surprised by your response.
     I expressed my opinion and you preach morality to me and say that I am arrogant.
     Is there any greater arrogance than that?
     There are many ways to loosen the hands of the scientists and some of them start with such an article and go through politicians who, following it, cancel budgets.
     Besides, scientists are also human and society's attitude (influenced by articles like this) to their work affects them.
     This is my opinion and it is not condescending. I guess I'm just as vulnerable to such things as they are, which is also why moralizing such as yours (albeit more vicious) made me stop commenting here for a while.

     Nadav:
     It seems to me that it will be difficult to say the things more clearly than I said them.
     It is important that the entities on which the mathematical laws operate are themselves mathematical.
     As long as there is no world, these are laws without a physical model, but they are still laws.
     Once there is a world (and it turns out there is) the problem is much simpler because then they are also realized in the physical world.

     sympathetic:
     Regarding your last response - I still correspond with Professor Guttfreund from time to time (the main topic of our correspondence in recent times was none other than steam about the poor quality of some of the articles in Odyssey 🙂 ). Recently he also participated in the university's operation and gave lectures to Israel Railways passengers during the trip.

158. Or K.

     In my opinion, the interesting question regarding brain research is the fundamental difference from other fields of science (this claim is also valid for other biological systems). While in physics there is a separation of scales, you can talk about atoms without knowing about quarks. Newton's laws can be written without knowing that matter is made up of atoms, and likewise the laws of thermodynamics can be formulated. That is, the relevant energy and time scales can be separated and independent theories can be written for them. In fact, this ability means that reduction can be done in physics and chemistry, but it is usually unnecessary. There is no point in creating chemistry based on quarks.
     In biological systems there is no distinct separation of scales (energy, time,...). From this it can be understood that not only is reduction unnecessary but that it is impossible and therefore it is possible that the description of the brain will be done on several different levels (different languages) that do not have a common language, I think this is Prof. Marom's argument against interdisciplinary.

     Yigal c.
     Be careful with the analogy of the brain to the computer. While a computer is an engineering system designed to solve certain questions in an optimal way, the brain is a product of evolution, including chance. In biology, the history of the system is of great importance. Evolution determines one of many paths that is not necessarily optimal. While an engineering system is built to answer a specific problem in the best way possible, a biological system uses what is at hand to solve a problem that arose in the framework of evolution. Another point is that all computers are pretty much the same computer while people differ not only in hardware but also in software and environmental impact. Is a human brain like a monkey brain? Apparently I am not satisfied if it will be possible to build a model from first principles that would know how to differentiate between these two types of brains. The problem is more complex because the more complex the brain, the greater its influence from the environment.

     Who is God?

     Thanks for the link to the interview with Prof. Chaim Sampolnisky (in London and Kirschenbaum) who is one of the leading brain researchers in Israel, if not in the world. More than twenty years ago, Sempolinski, Gottfreund and a colleague solved a complex problem in neural networks (the Hopfield model). The hope was that this solution would lead directly to understanding the brain. Since then Sampolansky realized that without a biological understanding the brain cannot be understood and he concentrated on studying biology. Regarding the other pair of researchers: Prof. Amit died about a year ago and Prof. Guttfreund was the president of the Hebrew University and finished his term several years ago.

159. Michael
     I'm sorry I just don't seem to understand you,
     A law by its definition applies to something other than it, if there is no "something other than it" there is no possibility to even define a law and certainly not to give it the status of actual existence, for one and one and one to be two there must be something that can express a single thing

     You create some kind of synthetic split between the laws and the things that the laws apply to and give the laws the status of an independent existence beyond the material in which they are expressed. Why? And if you have already created the split then why are you not ready to create the same split between the thoughts and the material in which they are expressed?

160. Who is God?

     Beyond the main discussion on whether it is possible to make a reduction to spirit using matter, a marginal discussion arose here that I would like to address. From whom do you go against Shimon Marom's criticism and say that it is unnecessary according to your definition of "steam". To quote your 31st response "I remain of the opinion that the man is just whining and all he can achieve is to loosen the hands of the scientists.". I don't understand this condescension - why are you condescending to the scientists, do you think that a criticism they don't agree with will make them feel bad? Criticism is not steam, it is an attempt to reach the truth. One of the most important books in philosophy is called "The Critique of Pure Reason". If the goal is to raise funds or support science, then of course we avoid criticism, but if the discussion is objective, then criticism is the most important tool. In order to understand that something is wrong, it is not necessary to find an alternative to it, and for proof there are thousands of counterexamples in mathematics. Criticism is a tool in the pursuit of truth, it should not be ignored even if achievements have been made so far.

161. Something relevant:
     http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html

162. Nadav:
     It's a matter of defining words. that's it.
     Running also cannot exist without a runner.
     Thought comes from the verb "think" and only living beings can think.
     I remember you once talked about the difference between "by force" and "actually" and this is the difference here.
     A thought can exist by force even without the thinker, but in practice it exists only when there is a thinker.
     Mathematics is a different thing from thinking about mathematics. In fact, beyond being an independent law of nature that is true in every possible world, it is the "power" of thought about mathematics.
     There is a difference between the different thoughts.
     There are false thoughts, there are thoughts of making up stories, and there are thoughts about nature and its laws.
     It is permissible and correct to say that nature and its laws actually exist even without thoughts, but false thoughts and stories exist without thoughts only by force.
     The laws of nature exist without the need for humans and mathematics is a law of nature. This is what allows us to study the history of the universe long before there was any living thing in it. If mathematics existed only from the moment man discovered it, there would be no justification for applying its laws to times before man existed.
     Since mathematics is also closed within itself and the entities on which it operates are mathematical entities, it does not even need an actual world to operate in.
     It is true that in order to test its validity as a law of nature, an actual world is necessary, but it itself does not depend on the existence of such a world. Simple - if there was no real world, there would be no nature and therefore it would not be a law of nature, but even then the correctness of the claim that mathematics is a law of nature in every possible world would be preserved. There was simply no possible world.

163. Correction, avoid comment 38.

164. Lerah from response 37, read my response number 30 again, I also clearly addressed the subject of randomness and mutations, so there are no differences of opinion between us.

     In the same response I also referred to the issue of "complexity from simplicity" such as fractals and other recursive processes that allow a very very simple process that repeats itself over and over again each time on its previous result, to create structures of very, very high complexity. One of the most beautiful examples of this is a snowflake, another beautiful example is our brain.

165. Michael, thanks, the links are really excellent.

     Hezi, you're wrong, period. Natural selection destroys only the animals that are not suitable for the living environment, but it keeps alive those that are suitable and allows them to continue to develop and pass their good qualities on to future generations, so that they continue to develop.

     Since a brain gives an advantage to the animal that carries it, and allows it to act more efficiently in the world, then natural selection will not destroy it and will allow it to continue to grow and develop more and more, every generation a little.

     Even today we see in nature in front of our eyes all the stages of brain development, starting with molluscs and worms with very small and primitive brains, continuing with reptiles, birds and rodents with more developed brains, up to monkeys and their humans with a much more complex and developed brain. You can clearly see all the stages of development, the complex brain that we have today was not created suddenly at once, it developed gradually, little by little, every generation a little, over millions of years. A creature with a very primitive brain will always have an advantage over a creature with no brain at all, and a creature with a slightly more developed brain will have an advantage over its teammates, therefore its chances of surviving and passing on this slightly more developed brain to its offspring are greater.

     I suggest that you read a little about the subject because your words imply that you do not understand the process you are attacking at all.

     I would also like you to explain how your worldview lines up with an almighty self-created God? Why doesn't the rule of complexity that cannot naturally evolve by itself also apply to God? Why is it beyond your logic? Does the rules not apply to him? A God so wise and intelligent with such miraculous abilities was suddenly created by himself? How does this work out for you with the same logic that does not allow you to accept the theory of evolution?

166. Roy, you're wrong. Evolution is a combination of two random and non-random processes:
     1) The creation of the changes (mutations) is a random process (at least as of today no non-random mutation creation mechanism has been found, except for replacing segments)
     2) The selection process which is a non-random process and is dictated by the environment.

     Hazi, it's true a destructive choice and those who remain are the suitable ones. The one who created is as I wrote to shepherd natural processes of mutations. There is no planning here, no thought, just randomness and selection.

     The point that all creationists somehow miss is the power inherent in the combination of:
     1) Reproducible system 2) Occasional mistakes 3) Selection.
     These three processes together can lead to very complex and surprising results that seem seemingly planned.

167. who-as-al
     Your reasoning that in order for there to be thoughts there must be someone who thinks them should not continue to the logic that says that in order for there to be a certain law there must be something that is legislated upon?
     Why can the law exist without the legislator but thought cannot exist without the thinker?

     You are actually presupposing what you want to conclude, after all, you can just as easily say that in order for there to be someone who thinks, there must be thoughts and then suddenly upgrade the ontological position of thought to the same level where you put mathematics

168. Yigal:
     No.
     Mathematics is not a thought but a collection of laws that are true in every possible world and I can assure you that one plus one has always been two - long before anyone thought of it.
     I also don't understand your disapproval of the discussions here.
     It seems to me that basically you agree with Lisa who agrees with me and there are other people here who said the same things in different forms.

169. Roy:
     Nice links. Thanks.

170. Roy,

     I will not convince those who do not want to understand.

     I'm just giving food for thought:

     "Choice" even if it is very natural,
     cannot create anything intelligent.
     What Brera does: destroys. point.

     The question is not what destroys, but what creates...

171. It seems to me that the article, like the discussions attached to it, is missing one big thing: what is the meaning and definition of the phrase "the human spirit"? Some of the commenters referred to the "soul" at all (no one has any idea what the meaning of this term is). It seems that no two people in the world refer to the term "human spirit" in the same way, and therefore the whole article and discussion seems a bit fruitless.
     If it's more for me to make a very comprehensive reduction (which is so popular in this discussion...), then similar to what Liza said (response 17), the investigation of the brain is similar to the investigation of computer hardware, and it will probably be possible to understand the chemical and electrical processes in the brain and link them to a certain extent with thoughts , feelings and reactions, but understanding the thoughts and feelings (the spirit??) in a chemical-electric way and the exact relationship between them will not be possible without creating an appropriate model of them (of the thoughts, feelings and the relationship) which will probably mean understanding the "software". All that is currently being done in the field of brain research is finding statistical relationships between all of these and it does not appear that there is currently a clear path on how to reach an understanding of the relationship.
     Michael, no one doubts your expertise in the field of mathematics, but it seems to me that mathematics is simply thought (very profound, but only thought), and thus there is no difference between it and any other thought that has no existence without matter, i.e. the mind. I do not mean a particular mind in which this thought (or any thought) exists, but some mind (that can hold the thought) at some time. Isn't it more correct to say that the rule "one and one plus one are two" is a conclusion that stems from mental assumptions and not a law of nature?

172. Light K:
     I see that if there is a disagreement between us it is only about what Marom claims and not about the important things.
     That's already good.
     However - it clearly goes against the dream of neuroscience to understand the origin of spirit from matter and in my opinion it is a dream that is not only legitimate but also logical and useful.
     In my opinion, it is not wise to go against legitimate and useful things.
     He opposes a naive reduction of the spirit to matter, while if such a reduction is achieved - the last title that would suit it is naivety. After all, it is clear to almost everyone who separates the spirit from the matter, so what does he actually want? Let's not try to understand how it happens?
     When you say "brain research" today, you are talking about all the layers of deciphering the origin of spirit from matter, and you are not talking about neurophysiology alone.
     It starts with genetics and biochemistry, goes through neurophysiology and ends with psychology, linguistics and education. No one is proposing to abolish fields of research other than neurophysiology any more than physicists are proposing to abolish weather forecasting.
     His criticism of the lack of agreed upon standards of relevance seems to me to be talking about nothing.
     I wonder when and in what science there were such standards. Did Newton have such agreed standards? Did he even have anyone to agree with?

     I remain of the opinion that the man is just a piper and all he can achieve is to loosen the hands of the scientists.

173. Hazi from response 28, even if you repeat this gross and stupid creationist lie a million more times it will not make it true, evolution is not a random process, only a person who does not understand a thing and a half about evolution would claim this, what pushes evolution and causes animals to develop is natural selection which causes That only the animals with the best qualities will survive and pass their good qualities to the next generations. The only random thing in evolution is the mutations and the decision if an offspring will receive a certain gene from the father or the mother, from here on there is no randomness.

     In short, it's really not a random process.

     Regarding "it's not possible", do a Google search on fractals and recursive processes, and you'll see that there are countless examples of a simple process that repeats itself over and over again and finally creates structures of infinite complexity.

     By the way, how does your claim line up with an almighty God who surpasses in his attributes everything that exists here, you claim that he created himself just like that? How does it suddenly make sense to you? After all, you said that complex things cannot be created by themselves, why doesn't this rule also apply to God?

     .
     >> 1. A lesson in evolution for Rabbi Zamir:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr71eDqwl7o

     .
     >> 2. Evolution or bievolution?

     Part 1:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7kkRG5vlI

     Part 2:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHsdhVxeyY

     Part 3:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1fdRbniA6w

     Part 4:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ_6HtX3cUI

     Part 5:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M7kkRG5vlI

     .
     >> 3. Evolution or creationism?

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyF3J48G2pU

     .
     >> 4. Conclusive proof of the origin of the person:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMj_45epINM

     .
     >> 5. The universe is explained simply:

     http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C0259FB2CD49CB7A

174. Michael,

     I don't think Marom claims that there are no achievements for brain research - he is a brain researcher himself, after all. What he claims, and I agree with him, is that the study of the brain is not the whole "study of the human spirit". That is, if someone claims that other sciences such as social sciences and behavioral sciences can be abandoned in favor of brain research, then they are wrong. It is indeed possible that one field will contribute to the other, like mathematics contributes to physics for example, but one will not replace or contain the other. Marom claims that certain researchers tend to create the impression that this will be the case, and for that he is offended. I don't know if this is indeed the case, but assuming it is, there is definitely room for an article.
     It is important to understand that there is no opposition to the study of the brain or disdain for its achievements or its future achievements. The approach is one of humility, of recognizing limitations. These limitations are an outgrowth of specialization, because it involves renouncing expertise in other fields. For example, physics may contribute a great deal to physiology, but it is unlikely that the next news in physiology will come from physical research. Similarly, the study of the brain may contribute much to psychology, but the next big news in psychology is unlikely to come out of the laboratory of a neuroscientist.

175. As long as researchers proceed from the false assumption that the brain,
     like the rest of life,
     Evolved by "random evolution"
     There is no chance of real progress in brain research.

     It is impossible that such a sophisticated mind evolved by itself...

176. Reality as we see it, is a dream and illusion
     Wakefulness is a dream state
     It is true that we receive negligible feedback from the outside world, but the overall picture consists mainly of the Panamanian world.
     Is it possible to establish facts in a dream state?
     Or hear we are in a collective delusion

177. Nadav:
     I don't understand what you don't understand.
     The fact that one plus one is two is not a thought but a law of nature.
     In this sense, mathematics exists even without anyone thinking about it.

     A thought - by definition - is something that someone thinks.
     Natural laws work without the need for anyone to think about them.
     It seems to me that the difference is huge and clear.

     Or K.:
     Why do you claim that no one has responded to the argument against reductionism?
     I responded to that and I think he is wrong about it.
     In general - this whole approach that tries to argue about the impossibility of doing things that have already been done in part seems strange to me.

     More than that - his approach cannot advance man in any way and the approach that opposes his approach - not only can it advance man but has actually advanced him a lot.
     In general, he says "maybe it is impossible to solve the problem you are trying to solve?".
     Beauty! so maybe! And maybe it can be solved? Do we stop looking just because it might not be possible to solve? If we did that we would still be small hunters.
     By the way - in my opinion - even if the problem cannot be solved in its entirety - many useful parts of it can be solved.
     Already today we have computerized interfaces for vision, lie detectors that operate based on observing the brain, ways to operate devices through thought, physical and chemical ways to treat diseases such as Parkinson's, schizophrenia, manic depression... and the list goes on.
     There are even discoveries about a connection between genes and character traits such as religious piety! We still don't know how the genotype causes the phenotype, but we clearly know about the existence of the connection!

     Just like that - to get a taste of the achievements that have already been made, you are welcome to view the following link:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page

     And regarding the illusion of the public - I have yet to hear of a single person who asserted the claim you are against - as if the answer would come from only one of the currently defined fields.
     Today, people from many disciplines are dealing with the issue while cooperating and recognizing the short-handedness of a single discipline in providing a solution.
     Nor do any of the neuroscientists claim that the problem will ever be fully resolved. This claim is reserved for the future like Ray Kurzweil and his ilk.

     I repeat:
     Professor Marom's approach can only lead to harm. No benefit will grow from it.
     Ehud already knows that I call this approach "Kotrei"

178. Prof. Marom does not claim that spirit does not originate from matter - that is, that there is a soul in the metaphysical sense of the word. He claims that a research ambition defined as finding the way the human soul works in a material description is unrealistic and goes beyond the field of brain research.

     It is interesting that none of the opponents responded to the author's central argument against reductionism. He claims, and quite rightly in my opinion, that science should focus on a narrow field and not try to "invade" or contain other sciences within it. For example, it is clear and agreed upon that all chemical reactions take place due to the laws of physics, and that all biological interactions take place due to the laws of chemistry. But this is pointless, and beyond that - it is bad science to try to describe biological systems according to purely physical rules. Not because this description would be fundamentally "wrong" - the writer is not trying to contain any metaphysical or magical rules - but because there is a fundamental flaw in reductionism at the level of practice.
     The scope of scientific knowledge is increasing, and one person is not able to be at the forefront of the research of more than a very narrow field of a certain science. For example, an expert on the mechanism of DNA replication in eukaryotes is not an expert on the behavioral ecology of birds and is not even an expert on the mechanism of DNA replication in prokaryotes. For this reason, it is not possible to reach a full explanation (emphasis on the word full) of the human soul thanks to the study of the brain alone, while neglecting the other relevant fields (psychology, etc.). It is certainly possible that brain research will make its contribution to this, but pretensions to an exhaustive explanation from this field of research will not come true, and the public should not be deceived that this will happen.

179. Liza

     Even given that you can map the brain like a computer and know all the components and all the connections between them and assuming that all computers are the same computer, even then I believe that it is not possible to run all the programs on the simulator. This is again a question of limited calculation ability. We may be able to roughly tell what software is running (given a finite collection of programs) on the computer but not exactly what it is doing. The question is a question about limited computational ability versus complexity. Even today it is possible to know in general what a person thinks from simulations but the details. It is possible to know that a person is angry or happy but not what causes him this feeling.

180. Michael
     I did not claim that matter is low, I only claimed that the dependence of thoughts on matter puts them at a lower level of existence than matter,
     I didn't really understand from your answer what the difference is -

     It is clear that this or that thought appears when a certain substance is in a certain state, it only means that there is a connection between the two things, but this does not necessarily indicate dependence, just like mathematics, this or that mathematical principle also appears only when a certain substance is in a certain state, whether Is it in the bodies themselves or in the bodies when they express some kind of thought (let's say in our minds), do you know another way in which a mathematical principle can appear?

     Why is the appearance of thought in matter a product of dependence but the appearance of the mathematical principle in matter (or in its expression as thought) is an expression of something that exists by itself? What is the difference?

181. Lahud (19):

     Regarding your question, I will answer with a question:
     Do you think there is anything in a computer beyond those currents and components that make it up?

     Not only that, given an accurate schematic description of the computer, it is possible to "run" on it in simulation any program we want (and also know, for example, "what software is running on it").
     Alan Turing discovered this surprising conclusion when he presented the universal Turing machine model.
     Today there are emulators that do exactly that.

     My conclusion is the opposite of yours

182. Roy

     This is more of a philosophy of science article rather than a scientific study. The questions that are asked are of the type: Are the research questions in a certain field feasible? What are the important questions and how can they be answered? These are questions about a certain field of science and not about research per se in this field. The answers to these kinds of questions are not scientific but more philosophical.

183. In my opinion, it is a real shame that such an article is published on a scientific website, there is nothing related to science in this collection of low nonsense. By the way, the above mentioned article was published not long ago on the YNet website as well and amazingly it was removed from there a few days later (it can still be seen in Google's cache memory) maybe they got some sense there.

184. Liza

     Unfortunately, the pursuit of sensations in order to receive research grants does not disappear when a field matures into the evidence of the nano field, which is a word taken from the world of the market, not from the world of science (it is stupid to limit science to a specific length scale).

     Regarding the different levels of the description, the analogy to the computer, although it is very far from the description of the brain, is instructive. From the following question you can understand why the chance of reducing one level (the spirit) to a more basic level of matter is apparently impossible:

     Let's assume that we could measure all the currents flowing in the computer at a given moment (as for the brain, this kind of microscopic description ability is in the possession of science fiction). Would we be able to learn from this what computer he is at that given moment and what software is running on it? I am satisfied that this can be answered in the affirmative, in my opinion, the approach that tries to reduce the spirit to matter is based on a technological analogy of this kind.

185. Nadav:
     There is nothing low in the material.
     Religions have tried to place it low but the sooner we get rid of this misconception the better.
     I'm not saying that there is no spirit - it's all a question of reference level - as Lisa pointed out.
     The fact that there is a Newtonian movement of molecules does not eliminate the existence of the weather, but just as the weather is based on the movement of molecules, so the wind is based on matter.
     Everything is a question of organization and dynamics and for every basis in the laws of nature.
     The math works regardless of the person.
     I can faithfully assure you that one plus one was two before there was any man in the world.
     Thoughts are a type of action performed by a living being.
     It's a matter of definition.
     Therefore thoughts depend on the existence of living beings and these are complex - what to do? - from material.
     Therefore, mathematics does not depend on matter and thoughts do.
     The thoughts, of course, also depend on mathematics because as I mentioned - they are also a matter of dynamics and organization of the material.

186. Very interesting questions arise here.
     I agree with part of Shimon Marom's criticism that there is a "lack of agreed standards for determining the relevance of the findings" of brain research (and certainly in his words about chasing sensations for publicity or to receive research grants). I will qualify this by saying that probably every new science is affected by these shortcomings and over the years when this science "mature" things will change, and as for its criticism:
     "I am afraid that to the extent that it is aimed at understanding the origin of spirit from matter, brain science today fails the most basic test"
     I actually think that this goal of understanding the spirit from the matter is a kind of research engine, a "super ambition" that drives the curiosity of the scientists, and indeed has a measurable and precise value.

     The really important point that Professor Marom touches on is that of relevant lighting levels. This is a very important and profound issue. He writes:
     "The embarrassment that the field is in as a result of the lack of standards to indicate a relevant level of description... leads to the contemporary chauvinism of naive reductionist science".
     There is some truth in his words, but he misses the point. The important point is that there is no awareness of the issue of light levels for the scientists involved in brain research.
     It should be added that there are phenomena (and in my opinion this is common in brain research) for which looking at one level of description is simply not enough. In fact, the purpose of the study of the brain (understanding the origin of spirit from matter) is the problem of the transition from one level of description (that of matter) to another level of description (that of spirit), when there are many more levels in between.
     (Think about what happens to a person who sits in front of a computer, runs some software and suddenly receives a message that the computer has run out of memory... He can no longer explain what happened to him at the same level of description of the software - he is forced to go down levels, sometimes even to the level of aggravation!) Indeed, a computer scientist , this issue of levels of description is like "second nature".

     Here is a quote from the words of Douglas Hofstadter from his book "I am a strange loop" which talks about exactly this topic of brain scientists and understanding the brain:
     "One might suspect neuroscientists, as opposed to lay people, to be so familiar with low-level hardware of the brain that they have come to understand just how to think about such mysteries as consciousness and free will. And yet often it turns out to be quite the opposite: many neuroscientists' great familiarity with the low-level aspects of the brain makes them skeptical that consciousness and free will could ever be explained in physical terms at all. So baffled are they by what strikes them as an unbridgeable chasm between mind and matter that they abandon all efforts to see how consciousness could come out of physical processes, and instead they throw in the towel and become dualists"

     Is Professor Marom one of those scientists?

187. Michael
     I only referred to the professor's general conclusion and not to every step in his thought process, with which one can agree or disagree

     As far as I'm concerned, thoughts are spirit, their existence is the existence of spirit, I defined in my response what I perceive as spirit.

     Your response raises a question

     Why is the basis of thoughts nothing but matter but the basis of mathematics is beyond matter? After all, both thoughts and mathematics exist in their own space and are expressed in matter
     Why the choice of you and some of the scientists who study the brain to give the existence of thoughts such a low ontological status that everything can be explained materially?

188. Oh yes,
     I'm afraid you forgot a number of fields that study the human spirit - psychology, sociology, history, the study of cultures and more...

189. In my opinion, there is a lot of truth in the claims made in the article. I also see the attempt to understand the spirit from the matter as a mirage vision. My main arguments are against the attempt to reduce complex processes to simple laws and in my opinion apply not only to neuroscience. The fundamental problem is our limited ability to calculate
     For example, it is possible to identify temperature and the average speed of molecules in a room, but it is not possible to calculate the trajectories for all the molecules in the room, not even for short periods of time. So we perform a system reduction
     A complex of a huge number of particles for a number of thermodynamic variables (temperature, pressure, density,...) regarding a system in equilibrium, this is not a problem regarding a system out of equilibrium (biologicals) it cannot be done. In this sense, it is appropriate to talk about the problem on two separate and unrelated scales: scientific microscopy and an unrelated descriptive level, for example psychological.

190. Sorry, does anyone have proof that I exist?

191. Of course I went down to the level of a certain commenter here I didn't have to bother writing reasoned things.
     I would simply write: "I do not agree. Expect harm from the irrational fanatics of all kinds."

192. This professor disagrees with most of the other professors dealing with the subject, including Ramachandran, Pinker and many others and he is not "the professor" in the news.
     The factual and logical errors that I pointed out in his words are errors and "agreeing with the professor" is agreeing with the errors.
     The existence of non-physical things has nothing to do with spirituality.
     Mathematics exists and works without any need for spirit, even though it is not matter.
     Thoughts also exist and exist even if they are basically nothing but matter, organization of matter (and organization is not matter) and dynamics of organizing processes based on matter.

193. I agree with the professor

     The spirit is the thing that simulates, or perceives the very existence of the spiritual objects (of which it itself belongs).
     That is, the existence of "spiritual objects" cannot be explained without assuming the existence of the spirit

     If I accept that there is a spirit, that is, there is a space where spiritual objects can exist, then I already accept the existence of another space outside the physical or material space, and all I can try to explain is the relationship between these two spaces, but I will never be able to To fully explain one with the help of the other because if I could, it would not be a different space at all but the exact same space and this is something I already refused to accept from the beginning.

     So either the spirit does not exist and only matter exists (which is ridiculous in my opinion) or the existence of the spirit cannot be explained only with the help of matter

     But I don't agree that there can be any harm in trying and researching as much as possible, without limitation, the research or its results can lead to general changes in our entire way of thinking and thus achieve things that currently seem impossible or even paradoxical

194. Cool, I have proof.
     Take an anti-depressant, or any other mood-altering medication. The existence of this drug is only possible because we understood the mechanism behind it.
     Today it is possible to do fMRI scans on people and see which areas of their brain are 'on' and know roughly what they are thinking about.
     There is no reason to think that in the future we will not completely decipher the puzzle of the brain.

195. To all readers:
     I subscribe to Odyssey and it should be noted that in the last issue many articles about the brain were published and this article is an exception among them.
     None of the other experts share Marom's views.
     The fact that he compares the goal (I emphasize - the goal and not the means) of brain research to the goal of alchemy (again - the goal and not the means) - and allows himself to do so mockingly, is quite funny.
     Does he really not know that the goal of alchemy has been achieved and today we know how to create gold from other elements?!
     We have no reason to think that the origin of spirit is not from matter, nor does the author of the article offer such a reason.

     In the full article (the article here is partial for some reason) he complains about not defining the solution to the psychophysical problem and that mental states are identified with brain states. Did he ask himself about the significance of the identification we make between temperature and average kinetic energy of molecules and frequency of radiation? Is this identification also not legitimate in his eyes?!

     He writes there:
     "When someone reports in a scientific journal that there is a relationship between any genetic variants and the intensity of activity recorded in the amygdala (a well-defined brain region) when the subject watches a violent film, what do we do with this information? Does this mean that a tendency to rage is due to the invention of a genetic variation? Not due to the environment of growth or due to The failure of education? Maybe both (for those readers who carry a genetic variant of niceness and wish to avoid arguments)? How does such a report contribute anything to understanding the origin of spirit from matter?"
     End of quote.
     Well - even if such a report does not contribute to the understanding of the origin of spirit from matter (and it does contribute!) then surely it is another evidence that spirit originates from matter - even if we do not know exactly how!
     None of the neuroscientists claim that education and the environment have no effect and I assume that he too will not be able to refute the claim that has been confirmed in many ways - both education and other effects of the environment are recorded in matter, so the connection that is really missing here is the connection between his claim that the origin of the spirit is not from matter and the wrong argument which he brings here.

     Another quote (appears here):
     " And what if it is not possible to explain our spirit through the study of the brain? I have found that reflexively many respond by saying and asking: "Maybe so, but what can be done? Criticism should be constructive", and other answers like that. Well, I am not convinced that criticism "needs To be constructive". If we don't know what is right to do, this does not mean that what we know is wrong should be done; scientific activity is not pressure work."

     come on!
     Does he deny the importance of astronomy, geography and the other mapping sciences?
     It is known that there are mapping sciences and there are process sciences.
     The process sciences are seen as more intelligent, but this is also not entirely justified because the transition from mapping to process is gradual when at different stages a more and more uniform picture is identified (think for example of Tycho Brahe's data collection which was followed by Kepler's ellipses and eventually the Newtonian theory of gravitation was created.
     All the steps in the process were necessary, while Marom suggests that we start straight from Marom - from the fortieth floor of the cafeteria in Tiberias.

     And another quote that appears here:
     "Of course there will be those who will claim that if we take the brain in all its parts, together with the microscopic insights we have, and add all the environmental and developmental components (history, relationships, characters...), we can reconstruct the human spirit, but then we have explained nothing."

     Here, too, I can't help but be amazed at the black/white approach he offers.
     Does he think there is no value in being able to build artificial minds? In other words - let's even assume that we don't understand how the mind we built works - doesn't its very existence prove that spirit originates from matter? Is it not possible to use it - whether for solving problems or for further research?

196. No…
     Why would it be a paradox? Isn't that what we are trying to understand all the time? What is medical science? Whether this is true or not is another question. For example, now apartment prices are rising because of all the research in medicine...

197. Let the experts deal with it
     The West does not have the right approach/tools

     A master from the east speaks

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUc4eAcYxE

198. Say number 2 how do you know you have proof or are you just talking nonsense.

199. For the author of the article, it is advisable to distinguish between two different questions. The metaphysical question and the question of human understanding. As far as the first question is concerned, I don't think there is anyone today who accepts object dualism (like Dickert's). In this respect, indeed there is only matter in the world. Despite this, this does not mean that the language of description for the human soul will be a neuro-physiological language only. Here it is a completely different issue related to the way in which we explain and describe the phenomena in reality in general and the human soul in particular. A scientific explanation is only one way of description, a psychological or existentialist explanation is another way. Is it possible to put them on top of each other and make a reduction? On this point I completely agree with you. Understanding man requires hermeneutic thinking also from a historical and cultural point of view as a layer on the scientific explanation.

200. Isn't it a certain paradox to know how you work?

201. There is no such thing as the 'human spirit'. It's a concept we invented to describe a complicated chemical/electrical mechanism like it that creates for us a subjective experience of emotion.
     Once the appropriate tools are in place, it will be possible to understand the mechanism and induce emotions as we wish.

202. totally agree! Expect offense from the technocrat fanatics and their fans.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.