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 <mailto: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 <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
        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?

Hi Jason,

Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is effectively simultaneous.


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
    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?

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!


    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.

    Me too!

    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. ;-)


Jason
--



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
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