On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:04 am, "Stephen Paul King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> > Dear Bruno and Friends,
>> While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
>> here and not hidden variable theories, the fact that it
>> has been experimentally verified that Nature violates
>> the principle Locality. Therefore the assumption of
>> local efficacy that Mauldin is using for the supervenience
>> thesis is not realistic and thus presents a flaw in his
>> argument.
> Local supervenience doesn't have to be argued from
> fundamental physics. It can be argued from neurology.
> Mental states arent affected by what goes on outside
> the head unless information is conveyed by the sense

This isn't true, is it?

So we have two particles (A and B) that are entangled.

Entanglement is never destroyed, it is only obscured by subsequent
interactions with the environment.

Particle A goes zooming off into outer space.

10 years later, Particle B becomes incorporated into my brain.

The next day, an alien scientist measures the entangled property on
Particle A.

This will have an immediate non-local effect on Particle B won't it?

And since B's state has been altered, and it is part of my brain, then
my brain state has been altered as well, hasn't it?

Maybe only a tiny amount, obscured by the many environmental
interactions that the two particles have been subjected to since the
initial entanglement, but in a way that is real and at least
conceivably significant.

And if that is true, then to the extent that mental states supervene
on brain states, my mental state would also have been altered by non-
local effects.

Or is that wrong?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to