On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:58:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
> 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.
If that were the case though, then why have a brain? Even twins who are not
conjoined speak in unison sometimes. The mind would be much safer
entangling it's BECs in the skull or the knee cap, or in the stratosphere
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins
> > 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
> > information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is
> > it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via
> > intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words
> > say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even
> > 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
> > and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said
> > 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
> > data with similar mechanisms, but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They
> > speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect
> > they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other
> > 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
> > "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
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at