On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
>
>>  On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason Resch
>>
>> IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
>> but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer.
>> It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's
>> nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and
>> transistors.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Hi Roger,
>>
>>     Please leave magic out of this, as "any sufficiently advanced
>> technology is indistinguishable from 
>> magic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>".
>> The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much
>> different from a bunch of diodes and transistors.
>>
>>     Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain
>> special?
>>
>
> I agree with what you say above.
>
>
>>  I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both
>> synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely
>> classical physical methods.
>>
>
> What leads you to suspect this?
>
>
>     The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed 
> here<http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html>.
>
>


If I understand your point correctly, the phenomenon that needs explanation
is the apparent simultaneity of various sensations which tests have
indicated take varying amounts of time to process.  Is this right?

If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem.
If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process
visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or
synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to
complete.

There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up.  We have a
fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks
that.  Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they
go unnoticed.  Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly
changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn
our heads.  Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but
it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw.  So I do not find
it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us,
making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same
time when it was not.



Quantum entanglement allows for a variable "window of duration" via the EPR
> effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the
> state of the system. All of the "parts" of it operate simultaneously, not
> matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in
> space time. This is the "spooky action at a distance" that has upset the
> classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can
> derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum
> pseudo-telepathy effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy>
> .
>
>
I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case.  EPR doesn't communicate
any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance
unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement
(CI).  Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity,
couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per second of nerve
impulses?

If one runs an emulation of a mind, it doesn't matter if it takes 500 years
to finish the computation, or 500 nanoseconds.  The perceived first person
experience of the mind will not differ.  So the difference between delays
in processing time and resulting perceptions may be a red herring in the
search for theories of the brain's operation.


>
>
>
>>  Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content
>> thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible
>> abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and
>> report on it would lead us to very different conclusions!
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> Jason
>  --
>
>
>     The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously
> generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and
> what we are conscious of is that model.
>

I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating
machine.


> Does a "machine" made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one
> made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe...
>

No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not.

Jason

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to