> Hi Nick,
>      OK, Cul de sac's are terminations of a first person point of view.
> Unless we believe in disembodied minds then there is some kind of
> physical system with some kind of wave function that is associated with
> the 'body' of the observer. Here we are considering cats but that does
> not matter since it is the first person experience that is being
> investigated, be it of a cat, an ameoba or a human. So, if there is a
> cul de sac there there has to be some wave function aspect that encodes
> the 1p and the termanation of that wave function matters within the
> global scheme of the branching. Thus there is a 3p consequence.
> Onward!
> Stephen

Hi Stephen

There was a time when (like Stapp or perhaps more like Penrose) I
really thought that brain functioning in terms of consciousness was
more  quantum mechanical than emergent but I'm not sure any more that
the consciousness contribution to our wavefunction is very much
different to that of a person with a brain that is unconscious or has
no consciousness (i.e. was freshly dead! from 3p POV) any more than
the QM wave function of a pint of water with small waves on top of it
in a narrow glass would be that much different to that of the same
pint glass of water that was static.  I tend to think consciousness is
an emergent classical property so I'm not sure that there would be QM
consequences at the 3p level that would be significant.

However according to QTI the decohered wave functions that represent a
person (brain plus emergent consciousness) in different bundles of
differentiated universes  owe their continuity to QM.

Best wishes


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