|| Welcome to the Blog managed by the KVPY 2005 Batch || Twish asks members to comment on the blog MaKeOvEr!! || RG says: Looks like a famine situation here || Blog glows in bright shades || KVamPys tame their own minds... with new mysterious posts on TP ?! || What is TP after all ? || KVamPYs start thinking about their Summer Projects as the Entrances are about to end.. || IIT? IISc? IISER? KVamPYs wonder where to enjoy this summer.. || Obiwan and Sunita in ISSER || Arun awaiting replies to his letter. || Swetabh ( Bhakt ) and Abhilash trying for IIT Kanpur ( Along with Twish ) || What about the next year ? Apply again for KVPY ? || Bulbs light up as blog fills up with posts. || Latest News brought to u by Twish (Twishmay) and Gr81 (RaSh) (EMAIL US NEWS) || EvErY bOdY KnOwS..... KVamPYs RoCk!! ||

Thursday, July 06, 2006

... Thinking about Thinking ...

Heyy Bloggies !!!

Oh I can't explain how my fingers are tickling to get busy typing an elaborate essay on a few really interesting topics I have in mind. But sorry for the dissappointment oh little fingers for due to lack of both time and patience, and a couple of exams on my head ( Skool + Coaching ), I'll have to part, with just a few words to say !

Arun and Ankit ! Welcome to our blog ! Arun, the post you wrote about what we are taught ( and what we are not... ) was nothing but true and I just can't help agreeing with it. In a way, I think you exressed a common feeling among all of us. But maybe they don't teach us how to solve the likes of Schrodinger Equation for two reasons that I can think of... firstly, to teach you need to get to know it yourself first ! And secondly, lets be honest here, how many 'general' kids around, do you think, would take much interest to actually learn to solve equations about quantum orbitals ?

Not to discuss the cons, lets think of the pros. Why don't we try learning the stuff we want to ourselves ? And I think this very blog would be a great medium or platform ! So any1 knowing howto solve second degree differentials with a couple of wierd vector calculus symbols in it, plz come up and help ! hehe kiddin lol.

Other than that. I'd like to share a thought. Let me clarify my stand by pre-rationalizing that what I'm going to say isn't SCIENCE for there aren't many things you can proove by experiment about it. Its something common to all of us though, whether we notice it or not. What would you people say about conciousness ? The very thing that gives us this unique ability to question the very laws of GOD ? How can you expalin something like it interms of Physics ? The very entity which keeps us thinking. Which makes us slaves of Time's direction ( not YOU Time ;-) ! ).
I think it has more to do with the laws of nature for in a sense, it is the very genesis of any experimental result ! If conciousness didn't exist ? Would this universe exist ? Or would it matter if it existed ? Or leave alone that, would things like the Uncertainity Principle still exist ?

Sumhow I have this intution that our conciousness, our power to think independantly, is not something which runs by natures laws ! It creates them ! It is the very creator of or universe, and sumhow in the backdrop, every conciousness is related.
I have this instinct that finding the mysterious nature of our conciousness would be a very major step to understand the nature of or create or discover a complete theory of everything !

I have my reasons for thinking so. I can share them, but for that, sometime later.
Till them you guyz n gals can wonder how you CAN wonder ...

Me Take Leave,

May KVamPYs Rule

~ Twish ~

7 comments:

Arun Chaganty said...

I too am attacked by queer inituition. But I believe in the chaotic nature of the univerese (order in disorder thingy). It is known for a fact that most of our thoughts are formed due to chaotically random (chaotic and random aren't the same) connections of neurons. But this doesn't at all explain consiciousness.

One theory I have is that one can not understand the self from the self. I analogize this to understanding a 3-d world in a 2-d world. It is just not possible. Then again every theory as per science is intrisically disprovable (the philosophies of science mention the arguablity of any theory to be very important)

But yes this post really got us thinking (I've read your HR blog too.)

TwIsTeR said...

Heyy Arun !
Seems like you're really into chaos theories & no wonder why... Hmm thoughts formed by randomw AND chaotic connection of neurons? I think its not quite true for the connections are quite based on hit-n-trial but certainly they are not random! Once the neurons allign, its not often that their connections change! When they do, its what you call expierience. A few months ago I used to program neural networks (of very basic kinds) in C++. The thing is the network initially is random, but then through interaction with its purpose, it gets organised. And anywayz, randomness OR Chaos does not explain conciousness.

The thing about intrinsically disprovable theories, ceratainly no logical system is self-sufficient (Godel's theorem) & so is the case with sceince. However, more than logic there is an experimental reality with the facts in science! But there problem is that conciousness is the key to any experiment.

Anywayz its gr8 to see you thinking man. Keep up with this most remarkable capability of us humans...

TwIsTeR

TwIsTeR said...

& about wat u wrote at my blog ! I dunno if people can grow up without being concious of themselves but I can let ya know that me surely not one of them ! hehehe ! Im sure you know this fact that most of your life processes aren't actually concious ! Infact just a mere fraction of them actually are! I sometimes have this strange feeling that there are more than 1 people in my brain, only that the other ones don't know howto speak ( or type! )...
... no don't book me up for insanity yet, try conversing with your selves as well! Infact their are a few rare interesting neorological cases I could quote where a single brain got divided into two different people!

But that for later.

Havn't read the book, though I'll read it asap.

Twish

Arun Chaganty said...

Cool, I've always wanted to look up neural networks. And by the way I said chaotically random, not just random. Most chaotic structures do have an underlying structure. Actually I had a long discussion with my KVPY-mates at the camp about thinking. I think they are as you said random initially, and then as connections are made more often here and there, they are the first on the trial basis. It's like a heuristic, if this section is called on before many times, it will call up first. However, I haven't really any proof for this, but its a thought.

As for not being concious of oneself, I think upto a certain age, you really wouldn't know, and even if you are fully concious of yourself now, it may not have been so. And as for alter-egos, I have several, and they can talk and type too. It provides a lot of fun talking to your self, debating. It think I'm semi-sadistic, because I often pull a argument when my mind know the right answer, just to see where it goes. Till now it hasn't really lead me anywhere, but heck, that isn't to say it won't. Well great talking to you. Where are you? I'd really like to meet you some time in my life atleast. Perhaps the next KVPY meet.

sparekh said...

hey twish you've hit a very important point. A person (i've forgotten who) once said, that if you can arrive at something by mathematical derivation- thats great. but if you get there by intuition- thats pure genius.
I attended a lecture by David J. Gross, 2004 nobel laureate for his work on quantum chromodynamics. His opinion was the same. He said a lot of things, and then someone asked "well thats what you said but how do we know its true? How do you prove it?" and he answered "I simply know it. If i had to waste my time proving this how would i move on to new things. Proofs are for others/mathematicians to work it out. !!
spidy

Gr81 said...

Well read your post (and comments) atlast! Sorry for not leaving a comment soon!

Interesting convo b/w u and Arun. Must say that your idea about concious is appealing (and mayb true!) I agree to the alter ego part (I reckon everyone does) But they are all created by "one" concious I think. Mayb we might have a time when other parts of our body might have a concious of their own (rememebr what we talked about in camp??)
Haven't heard about the theories that u said, but yeah as spidy said: Proofs are for others to work out - I reckon some CBSE/ICSE ppl should read this too!!

Anyways, hope u'll post more cool stuff. And yeah, just to remind ppl, the shoutbox etc. are down below (Can't help it rite now - but better download Firefox)
So do keep leaving your comments!

Arun Chaganty said...

I'd sadly disagree with spidy on one pt. I love intuitive proofs, and proofs by analogy, but I must say that in the end a proof is a reqiurement, to make your foundations strong. For example fermat's theorem ( the 2^2^x + 1 one) could be argued as the cases for 1 -> 4 can be shown true, and after that they are just too big anyway. Also, it can shown that IF 2^y +1 is a prime, then y must be of the form 2^x. One could feel it right, even though it is wrong.
The rigour of maths is a foundation on which all other sciences lie. Besides an elegant, simple proof is beautiful too. But yes, mathematicians can do it, but it must be done by SOMEONE sooner of later.
I'd like to join Rasagy in saying the firefox RULES (any mozillian type about:mozilla for the prophecy), and I'm not sure if I join anyone, but linux rules too. Switch to it, and you'll never repent the decsision (read fine print).

And Twish, I have a bunch of queries relating to how to apply neural networks. I've understood the basic concept of it, and how it's supposed to work, but how exactly to apply it, i'm not sure. Could you post me your code, or should we continue a dicussion somewhere else or here itself.