May I suggest that entangled BECs in their brains may allow for more
or less instant communication of thoughts, but that one or the other
may be able to disentangle and have independent thoughts, or have
independent thoughts that are instantly communicated and disagreed
with. Just a shot in the dark.

Richard

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby
> and Brittany:
>
> http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm
>
> You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly
> share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison but they can
> disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to mean that they are
> similar machines and therefore are able to generate the same functions
> simultaneously, but then how can they voluntarily disagree? To me, this
> shows how fundamentally different subjectivity and will is from computation,
> information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical,
> it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via
> intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words they
> say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even though
> Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in a more
> subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo is not
> meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words with her ears
> and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said at
> nearly the same time.
>
> I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality of
> arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is processing similar
> data with similar mechanisms, but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are
> speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that
> they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five
> seconds later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing.
> Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could not
> evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TGERtHlMkLIJ.
> 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