So there are non-local effects on the brain - but these effects are random
and aren't distinguishable from local quantum randomness.
To the extent that the human brain is resistant to local quantum randomness,
it is equally resistant to non-local quantum randomness.
When the alien scientist makes a measurement on Particle A, he is changing
the quantum state of the entangled A-B pair. But since the outcome of his
measurement is random, it's effect on Particle B is random - and afterwards
Particle B's behavior is entirely consistent with what it *could* have been
even is the alien scientist had not made his measurement.
Though Particle B's behavior after the measurement is possibly not what it
*would* have been if the alien scientist had not made his measurement.
But, regardless, due to the brain's resistance to quantum randomness, the
measurement is unlikely to have any impact on my behavior, UNLESS it happens
to occur in a way that breaks the deadlock of a "Buridan's ass" scenario.
Is this correct?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> Note that the kind of entanglement you're talking about is the same as
> randomness. Bohm's version of QM makes this explicit. There's a
> deterministic wave function of the universe so that everything effects
> everything else instantaneously (which is why there's no good Bohmian
> version of QFT) and quantum randomness is just a consequence of our
> ignorance of the complete wave function. But Tegmark's paper shows that
> quantum effects must be very small and the brain is essentially classical -
> which makes sense from an evolutionary viewpoint. You want your brain to be
> classical, except for a very rare randomness to avoid the problem of
> Buridan's ass - and you don't even need brain randomness for that, there's
> plenty of randomness in the environment.
> On 1/31/2011 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> You just happened to mention the 800kg Gorilla in the room! While we can
>> rattle off a sophisticated narrative about decoherence effects and quote
>> from some Tegmark paper, the fact remains that entanglement is real and
>> while we can argue that its effects could be minimized, we cannot prove that
>> it is irrelevant to supervenience. This is a game-changer for physical
>> supervenience arguments. But the problem is much worse! It is becoming
>> harder to how up Tegmark's prohibition on quantum effects. Just recently an
>> article appeared in some peer-reviewed journal discussing how entangled
>> states are present for macroscopically significant periods of time in the
>> eyes of birds. Don't they have a higher average body temperature than
>> -----Original Message----- From: David Shipman
>> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:41 PM
>> To: Everything List
>> Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
>> 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
>>> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at