Hi Jason Resch 

Sorry.  What needs explanation ?
Or is that even the right question ?


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-04, 16:06:02
Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer





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? 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". 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. 


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.



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.

-- 
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