On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net
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 <mailto: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
It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's
nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and
Please leave magic out of this, as "any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
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
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
Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is
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.
Right, but all are put together so that the audio and the video are
always in synch. Problems with this mechanism are conjectured to cause
schizophrenia. David Eagleman is looking into this kind of stuff but
isn't considering the quantum possibility.
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.
Exactly. The point is that all sensations are given as synchronized
with each other even though that cannot happen. Imagine a loom that used
many different threads each of which takes different speed processes to
be generated. It is as if they could be speed up or slowed down such
that the overall tapestry is always flowing at a single steady pace.
Think of the lag effect that we see with our smartphones. Is there
something like a "waiting for sender to respond" in our brains?
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
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?
No copyable information is involved. The literature of quantum
games (where the pseudo-telepathy effect shows up) explain this.
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.
yes, but this argument your making only applies if we are only
considering a single emulation. Try that argument when one has to
consider many emulations of mind communicating with each other. The
computational picture is missing the entire point that I am trying to
make when it ignores the necessities of interactions between many minds.
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!
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
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.
So why not aqssume that they can and figure out what can be
predicted from the assumption. ;-)
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