Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

<< < (9/12) > >>

Irreverend (September 18, 2009, 07:44:00 AM):
Of what use is a digital definition of information in comparing analogue and digital complexity?
Lekker man. First you yourself effuse broadly and ignorantly about the quantity of information in digital vs. analog. When the error is pointed out, you just sidestep the inconvenience instead of acknowledging it. That's just too preciously creationist of you.

It has already been digitized before it gets to your brain.
That so? There's no evidence to suggest that these "chemical packets" you speak of are like binary digits or strings. But then you obviously know something no neuroscientist I've ever read does.

I don't really see what I am doing as arguing. Why do you?
Um, let's see now. Prolly 'cos a great many of your replies, usually the least informed ones, are unmistakably geared at undermining what the other says. Maybe it's just me though.

But whatever. I'm done here.
Peter Grant (September 18, 2009, 11:27:01 AM):
Of what use is a digital definition of information in comparing analogue and digital complexity?
Lekker man. First you yourself effuse broadly and ignorantly about the quantity of information in digital vs. analog. When the error is pointed out, you just sidestep the inconvenience instead of acknowledging it. That's just too preciously creationist of you.



OK, I will attempt to explain in terms of Information Theory. Information in this sense is quantified by randomness. The more random the data, the harder it is to compress. Any deterministic algorithm run on the data will not increase it's randomness. For instance, unzipping a file does not increase the quantity of information stored in it.

BTW did you try the experiment I suggested?


It has already been digitized before it gets to your brain.
That so? There's no evidence to suggest that these "chemical packets" you speak of are like binary digits or strings. But then you obviously know something no neuroscientist I've ever read does.


Neurons either fire, or they don't. How can this be analogue communication?

I don't really see what I am doing as arguing. Why do you?
Um, let's see now. Prolly 'cos a great many of your replies, usually the least informed ones, are unmistakably geared at undermining what the other says. Maybe it's just me though.


Sorry, I thought the tone of my responses so far was alternately questioning and explanatory.

But whatever. I'm done here.



Really? I don't think you've done all that much yet.
bluegray (September 18, 2009, 14:28:16 PM):
This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.
Brrraaaap! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Look up how information is quantified before shooting from the hip like that. In one form or another, you've added the info to actually do the interpolation. Its amount is not zero or less.
At the risk of moving further off topic... I agree with Peter, the information gained by interpolation might not be zero, but it's not very useful either. You will have more values and pixels, but not more detail. Their are various interpolation methods of course, some will be more useful that others.

As for neurons being digital - I will stay away from something I know nothing about ;)
Peter Grant (September 18, 2009, 14:41:51 PM):
This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.
Brrraaaap! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Look up how information is quantified before shooting from the hip like that. In one form or another, you've added the info to actually do the interpolation. Its amount is not zero or less.
At the risk of moving further off topic... I agree with Peter, the information gained by interpolation might not be zero, but it's not very useful either. You will have more values and pixels, but not more detail. Their are various interpolation methods of course, some will be more useful that others.


Thanks bluegrey! It's nice to be understood. ;D

As for neurons being digital - I will stay away from something I know nothing about ;)


I'm not suggesting that neurons themselves are digital, only that they communicate with each other that way.
Irreverend (September 18, 2009, 21:36:41 PM):
I agree with Peter, the information gained by interpolation might not be zero, but it's not very useful either. You will have more values and pixels, but not more detail. Their are various interpolation methods of course, some will be more useful that others.
The issue isn't usefulness. If you think so, please define "usefulness" in relation to information. The issue is the amount of information regardless of one's tastes. If you add an algorithm to interpolate between samples, you have added information whether it's useful or not.

ETA: Thanks Petey, you're a real prince.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page