On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  On 9/4/2012 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
>>
>
>   Hi Jason,
>>
>>     Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is
>> effectively simultaneous.
>>
>>
> Perhaps this is the content of a certain computational state?
>
>
>     It cannot be just one. Even dovetailing many of them together does not
> achieve simultaneity. We have to keep up with all the other computations
> occurring all over the place. We must not think of the brain as an Isolated
> entity.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>
> Maybe the qualia isn't related to the processing of the sense information,
> but in sharing the results with the other parts of the brain (see
> modularity of mind http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/ ).
> Then by delaying the output by the appropriate amount, or by matching
> results at a higher level integration, the synchronization can be made.  I
> think modularity of mind explains well many aspects of consciousness, and
> also how anesthesia works.
>
>
>     Sure, but how does that account for the rest of the world? Think about
> how is it that two people can hold a conversation. How does the brain of
> one of the converses keep up and even anticipate the response to the other
> person's words? If it takes up to 1/2 a sec to hear -> process -> respond,
> where is the lag effect that should obviously occur? The brains of people
> engaged in a conversation are somehow synchronized so that the 1/2 sec lag
> time vanishes. How the hell does this happen?
>

The brain can process data as it is listening (like buffering a video
download) and likely predict the final word before it is done being
uttered.  To prove the brain somehow overcomes this half second delay in a
convincing way, you would need to engineer an experiment where a number
flashes on a screen and a person has to push the right button in under half
a second.  If you need two brains involved, then put a screen between them
with a computer screen and number pad facing each one.  Each time one
person enters the right number, a new number appears on the other person's
screen.  And it goes back and forth which each person pressing the button
as quickly as they can after the new number appears.  If this experiment
shows the interaction can take place faster than the video processing of
the visual centers in the brain then this would become a problem worth
trying to solve.  I'm not convinced there is any problem here that can't be
explained using classical means.

Jason



>     If what is really going on is happening at the quantum level and the
> world around us is just a classical illusion that it is generating, then
> the problem vanishes! Why? Because time vanishes in a pure state QM system!
> There is no "delay" or lag involved at all! My hunch is that what we think
> is reality is just a puppet show of what is really going on under the
> binary classical surface.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>   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.
>>
>>
> That we can perceive an instantaneous moment (despite that the processing
> of the information is spread out over time) should be no more surprising
> than the fact that the processing of information is spread out through
> space.  All information processed by the brain does not come to a single
> physical point where it is felt, so given the symmetry of space and time,
> there is no reason the information has to be processed at the same instant
> in time to create an experience that is singular.
>
>
>     Exactly, space and time in this case are interconvertible. This is
> exactly what Relativity tells us! Distribution of resources in terms of
> sequential or parallel events are equivalent. But we see that this is not
> limited to "locality in space-time" in the EPR effect. A QM system can be
> widely distributed, what matters is the flow of classical information on
> the 3,1 surface of the manifold made by stitching together many coordinate
> systems (via diffeomorphisms which are NP-Complete computationally). In
> theoretical physics this is the AdS/CFT 
> correspondence<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence>with the 
> technical exception that the CFT cannot be have an arbitrarily
> large 3,1 Minkowsky manifold as its base space. Why? Because there is
> really no single "dimension of time", there are only patterns of synchrony
> between many many many QM systems. The fun happens when we look at these
> patterns. They are "relations without 
> relata<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=relations%20without%20relata&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.ox.ac.uk%2F%7Emert2255%2Fphilosophy%2Ftalks%2Fspacetime_structuralism_talk_12jun08.pdf&ei=R9NGULr8N4Hk9ATN1oGwDw&usg=AFQjCNFv2OuSvRmqP_Zjb0SNtZ3D5CAxbg>
> ".
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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