DRFseven

I'm just saying that I don't think the "normal everyday" will of most people is about final goals. I think it's about current goals, and even the current goals may be unacknowledged. For instance, when people choose "heads or tails" or draw straws, they are still drawing a conclusion that answers the question, "How should I attain comfort?"

excreationist

The way you're saying it just sounds ambigious... I see that you are saying that this comfort is fleeting, but the way you worded it, it seems like attain comfort seems like a final goal, like attaining nirvana or eternal life.

So I see that you agree that people just continuously seek transient goals. Some goals may take years to attain but on the other hand, long-term goals are sometimes abandoned, so they aren't always set in stone.

DRFseven

Yes, I agree; I think our motivation to make a moral decision is supplied by mindstate of the moment. However, our long-term goals play into the feedback loop of cultural morality. We pass along moral attitudes that have to do with long-term goals, and in this way, those goals are likely to become part of the moral milleiu for the next generation to inculcate in their children. An example of this would be goals for "world peace" or "environmental responsibility" that were not a part of some previous generations' milleiu.

John E.D.P. Malin

To the Group:

We have moved beyond the naive notion that mathematical equations can capture the acts of the universe.

It is being replaced with complexity theory or programmed code of cellular automata!

Who wants to write the four lines of code that generate our universe?


Lord Malin

madmax2976

Damn, and to think Newton and Einstein were just wasting their time creating foolish little doodles...

crocodile deathroll

The human brain is very different from a computer. If you just imagine placing a macroscopic well programmed silicon chip into a bucket of sand and junk, then returning back about a year later and finding that it has re configurated all that sand into a supercomputer.
That is similar to what the human brain has achieved. Just a simple differentiated stem cell in a embryo configurated itself over an evolutionary background of millions of years into the human brain.

croc
crocodile deathroll

NialScorva

Um, most cellular automata and complexity theory can be written in terms of equations. It's prohibitively expensive to do so, but the two are pretty much equivalent. I believe your point is that cellular automata and complexity theory (though it's usually expressed in equations) is an equivalent language with better tools for describing the universe.

crocodile deathroll

I feel there is a better way to illustrate my point.
Imagine building a well programmed nano-robot about the size of a human egg. Then placing it in an environment full of all the raw materials to build copies of itself, link them up into one great intricate and intelligent machine.
It may seem like science fiction but nature is already making that science fiction scenario a reality in the form of the Human Brain.

crocodile deathroll

Devilnaut

I didn't mean to suggest that our brains and computers were equivalent. My point was in reference to madmax's earlier comment that insinuated that computers cannot make choices. When a computer decides between two alternatives, it is every bit a choice as when we choose what to have for dinner. I don't personally consider this a very complicated issue...

excreationist

Yeah, I only brought up chess computers because they have to make decisions with goals in mind based on limited information. (They can only look a couple moves into the future, and they're not even certain what moves the opponent will make)
Humans do this too, although they are much more versatile than chess computers are. And we can make several decisions per second. Our brains tick at about 20-40 cycles/second(?) but it can take many cycles for us to come up with solutions to complex problems.