"God" and Infinity ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm, actually no. I would go far as to state that the minds capacity for learning is
infinite, given the correct environment and stimulus. Its such a great pity that we have
such a fleeting life span with which to explore our world of endless possibilities.

No the minds capacity for learning is very definitely finite.

There are a finite number of neurons with a finite number of connections that can exist in a
finite number of states.

The estimates on the actual capacity vary enormously as the precise workings of the brain
makes a big difference in the amount of data it can store.

However large the answer is however, the capacity is still very definitely finite.

It's not possible to store an infinite amount of data on any finite substrate.

Originally posted by Taoman
Further to this is the question about infinite things like "God" and the apparent finitude of the world in which we live. Are they totally separate? How does an infinite entity interact with a finite world, that supposedly that infinite entity "made".
Where is the edge of encounter between an infinite entity and that which is finite?
Just thinkin. Dangerous, that.

You gotta discover "gods" language before you can converse.
And if you discover that, well you prolly wouldn't have much left to say anyway , or not.
Isn't this fun sometimes, coming here day in, day out, always talking of the same thing, always peeling the same grape .

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just a side note, we can actually know that Pi goes on forever.
It's not something we have to wonder about, it's been proved mathematically.

And I think you are getting a bit wibbly about infinity not mathematically justified.

[quote]And thus to say that an entity "God" does NOT exist (atheism) presumes you have defined
this entity in the first ...[text shortened]... at doesn't mean that they happen/exist
here, or anywhere in the visible universe)

Which is why I think you can argue sucessfully either way -either there is a "God" everywhere in all things and all times known and unknown, manifest and unseen, or there is no "God". This god-separate-from-the-rest-of-reality doesn't wash.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No the minds capacity for learning is very definitely finite.

There are a finite number of neurons with a finite number of connections that can exist in a
finite number of states.

The estimates on the actual capacity vary enormously as the precise workings of the brain
makes a big difference in the amount of data it can store.

However large ...[text shortened]... itely finite.

It's not possible to store an infinite amount of data on any finite substrate.

What about if the neurons follow some sort of 'prime number ratio loops'. With billions of neurons working intelligently to create an infinite system I think it is possible to create a brain which has infinite capacity. It will just take a bit of time for the neurons to come up with the new combination of patterns which seem similar to patterns that have come before but have an extra "something" to them, something that may be missed if we dont pay attention.

Billions of neutrons being able to create infinite patterns, (of sensation,learning and understanding),? Yeah, it's possible. But you have to recognize what is what and what is us in order to get everything in the right perspective.
There are some basic archetypes that all seekers have to understand and move on from. Others are for our own choosing, as long as they are creative,loving,etc.
Reason being is that if thought really does produce our reality , then in "heaven" we will most likely manifest whatever we think of instantly - hence the emphasis on positivity.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What about if the neurons follow some sort of 'prime number ratio loops'. With billions of neurons working intelligently to create an infinite system I think it is possible to create a brain which has infinite capacity. It will just take a bit of time for the neurons to come up with the new combination of patterns which seem similar to patterns that hav ...[text shortened]... l most likely manifest whatever we think of instantly - hence the emphasis on positivity.

No, you are talking nonsense again.

A finite number of neurons each existing in a finite number of states with a finite
number of connections can collectively store a finite amount of data.

You cannot get infinite data storage on any finite substrate.

It's a fairly fundamental part of the laws of physics.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you are talking nonsense again.

A finite number of neurons each existing in a finite number of states with a finite
number of connections can collectively store a finite amount of data.

You cannot get infinite data storage on any finite substrate.

It's a fairly fundamental part of the laws of physics.

So what if I make a unique pattern with my neurons firing in a certain order to convey to me that I am curious about something unusual? This sense of curiosity would be of course added to all the other 'normal signals' the neurons relay to us that keep us functioning.
What if I were to fire the exact same neurons but with one addition? Then the last number with another new one? etc.
Would I not be making a unique firing sequence, a pattern never before experienced by the brain?
Could the brain not accomodate virtually infinite patterns with its neurons firing in as yet untried neural paths?

I know there are a limited number of moves in chess, but that's a game with only 64 squares and 16 pieces each. I heard that there were something like 60 000 000 different positions achievable on the chess board.
It's not infinite but to most human minds, it may as well be.

If 16 pieces can have 60 000 000 variable positions on a 64 squared board,then how many different permutations of the billions of neurons within our brains possible?

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you are talking nonsense again.

A finite number of neurons each existing in a finite number of states with a finite
number of connections can collectively store a finite amount of data.

You cannot get infinite data storage on any finite substrate.

It's a fairly fundamental part of the laws of physics.

The history of the law of physics to me has been one of major blunders revealing greater accuracy about the world about us,but as yet no sound theory that explains the very big and the very little without some trouble. Why should this be a problem to a scientists like Newton - who was wrong, or Einstein some hundreds of years later, who too died without finding the elusive TOE.
Now in the 20th century we have the advent of quantum which is telling established physicists, who have based their life work on the likes of Newton and Einstein, that they too are wrong with any theory that attempts to improve on their work. No . The true scientists knows that Einstein had to be scrapped.
As important as his work was, he was not able to describe reality to his satisfaction.
So what sort of predictions are you making for scientists that base their phyisics on past failures? I think it's the innovators (and intergrators), who have a better understanding of the nature of the universe that will stumble onto workable theories that will saisfactorily describe the physical world (which is made out of virtually nothing 😉 )

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What if I were to fire the exact same neurons but with one addition? Then the last number with another new one? etc.
Would I not be making a unique firing sequence, a pattern never before experienced by the brain?
Could the brain not accomodate virtually infinite patterns with its neurons firing in as yet untried neural paths?

You are confusing a number of different things. You are confusing storage capacity with possible states, and you are confusing 'very large numbers' with 'infinity'.
I would argue that it is possible that the possible states of the brain is in fact infinite if space is smooth ie if a fundamental particle can exist on any point along a number-line in space. If however space is finitely divisible then the number of states is also finite.
Further I would argue that when we get down to the smallest elements, the parts of the brain can be affected by external factors such as gravity or electrical fields etc, thus the position of the brain in space is itself part of its state, thus there are as many states possible as there are positions in the universe - pretty big, but not necessarily infinite.
But storage is a totally different thing. The storage of the brain is not only finite, but probably well within our ability to estimate and even surpass with computer storage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confusing a number of different things. You are confusing storage capacity with possible states, and you are confusing 'very large numbers' with 'infinity'.
I would argue that it is possible that the possible states of the brain is in fact infinite if space is smooth ie if a fundamental particle can exist on any point along a number-line in space ...[text shortened]... te, but probably well within our ability to estimate and even surpass with computer storage.

Indeed had the googly woogly not confused capacity for learning with number of
neurons/connections etc, he would not have uttered his erroneous assertions
statement, i agree, the possibilities are endless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed had the googly woogly not confused capacity for learning with number of
neurons/connections etc, he would not have uttered his erroneous assertions
statement, i agree, the possibilities are endless.

I didn't confuse anything, and what I said was perfectly true.

twitehead was correcting Karoly not me.

To have an infinite capacity for learning you need an infinite storage capacity
to store all the new information.

If you don't have infinite storage capacity then there will come a time when that
capacity is exceeded, and you have to forget things to learn new things.

Also, with a brain capable of only a finite number of states, there is a limit on the
range and type of thoughts you can have.

Thus there will be things that it's not possible to learn, because they would require
more complex brains capable of more complex thoughts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are confusing a number of different things. You are confusing storage capacity with possible states, and you are confusing 'very large numbers' with 'infinity'.
I would argue that it is possible that the possible states of the brain is in fact infinite if space is smooth ie if a fundamental particle can exist on any point along a number-line in space ...[text shortened]... te, but probably well within our ability to estimate and even surpass with computer storage.

For the purposes of looking at the storage capacity of the brain, you only need go
down to the level of the smallest storage unit.

A PC hard drive doesn't gain the ability to store more information by changing it's
location in space.

It still has the same number of sectors containing the same number of binary bits.

Similarly, whatever mechanisms the brain uses for storing data, they don't go down
anywhere near the plank length.
At best they go down to the molecular/atomic level, and the number of discrete states
is definitely finite.

Originally posted by JS357
Does God have the power to irrevocably limit his infinititude?

The reason I raise this post is essentially the problem of mixing the way we refer to human life and transferring it without thought to discussions about states & things not experienced as humans, transcendent matters, like infinity.

One minute theists are talking about infinity and omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipotence (all-powerful). The next minute they are referring to "God" as if "he" was some sort of invisible giant human being. The Bible is full of this story way of referring to "God". Its in the language we use.

While I appreciate your question, it is stated in this kind of way.

I cannot intellectually go along with the thingifying and making-like-a-man of whatever we mean by "God". It seems a form of idolatry to me and doesn't make sense as soon as we begin to think a bit more than just accepting the implied assumptions.

They lead to all sorts of contradictions and issues. This is a way of thinking that is not big enough. Often the Christian concept of "God" is FAR TOO SMALL, too limited. An expanded view helps us to see that Hindus and Buddhists and others were seriously trying to grapple with this sort of thinking. It's not their "God" against Christians "God" but a human grappling with what is transcendent in life.

While Buddhists are not theists, they are not atheists either, in either of the accepted meanings of those words. Hindus have very deep and varying understandings of the nature of the Transcendent. So also do mystical Christians and Moslems (Sufis). Some do not pray to a separate - out there - in here - somewhere " God", but meditate and reflect and find that more helpful. Trying to define the transcendent too much creates contradictions - "God" cannot be fully defined, by "his-her-its" very 'nature'.

Btw do the so-called impersonal aspects of life exist somewhere outside of "God" - where?

Surely if we are talking about "God" we must regularly acknowledge that from a human perspective, there will always be a sense of mystery and lack of 'edges' to that which embraces and is the Source of All. Why do we need to protect our definitions and our orthodoxies so much? Is it because we are afraid and need some sort of security blanket?

We may not be able to state exactly what we think "God" is like. It would be better, but probably unlikely, to avoid talking too simplistically about the largest concept that humans can tackle. Some hymns are beautiful and full of anthropomorphic (with human form) language. That's ok, if only theists would more openly acknowledge the limitations of their language and human thinking.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you are talking nonsense again.

A finite number of neurons each existing in a finite number of states with a finite
number of connections can collectively store a finite amount of data.

You cannot get infinite data storage on any finite substrate.

It's a fairly fundamental part of the laws of physics.

It is probably not the sheer number of neurons that that determine "storage" capacity. The capacity also must take into account the uncountable ways those neurons repeatedly interact, with most neurons being used again and again in a set web of neurons to "hold" data when dealing with one set of data.

The concept of data banks in the mind, like some computer, is seriously limited and their are numerous theories that may indicate that memory may reside finally in some sort of quantum 'cloud' being generated by the neurons, not holding the data themselves. With a particular reference or signal a part of that 'cloud' sparks memory.

The idea of quantum principles in relation to the mind is also developing.
One is the Holonomic Brain Theory

"The holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with physicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally accepted ideas: Pribram and Bohm posit a model of cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantum vectors derived from reward anticipation potentials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

Originally posted by Taoman
It is probably not the sheer number of neurons that that determine "storage" capacity. The capacity also must take into account the uncountable ways those neurons repeatedly interact, with most neurons being used again and again in a set web of neurons to "hold" data when dealing with one set of data.

The concept of data banks in the mind, like some compu ...[text shortened]... eward anticipation potentials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

Quantum just means it comes in discrete bits...

It's basically just saying it's digital rather than analogue...

SO....

WTF is a "quantum cloud"?????

What you are saying here is literally gibberish, it has no meaning.

Don't use 'quantum' unless you actually know what the hell it actually means.

A criticism I can equally level at that idiotic 'holonomic brain theory'....

It's total pseudo-scientific gibberish.



Neurons don't have 'uncountable' ways they interact.

They have a finite countable number of ways they interact.

The number is probably incredibly large, but still very much countable and finite.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You gotta discover "gods" language before you can converse.
And if you discover that, well you prolly wouldn't have much left to say anyway , or not.
Isn't this fun sometimes, coming here day in, day out, always talking of the same thing, always peeling the same grape .

Yeah, ain't it fun!