Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> A zombie brain component is a component that replicates the function >> of the tissue it replaces but does not replicate its contribution to >> consciousness, such as it may be. The visual cortex is necessary for >> visual perception since if we remove it we eliminate vision. A zombie >> visual cortex replicates the I/O behaviour at the cut interface of the >> removed tissue but does not contribute to consciousness. If whole >> zombies are possible then it should be possible to make such a >> component. If you say the brain as a whole would have normal >> consciousness even though the component didn't > > > This is where I find your argument confusing. Consider an atom in the > brain. Can you replace it with a zombie atom? It doesen't matter, so long > as it acts like a normal atom it will contribute to consciousness. The > brain as a whole will have normal consciousness even though the atom > doesn't. But the consciousness never depended on the atom *having* > consciousness - only on the atom *contributing* to consciousness (by having > the same functional behavior). Yes, I agree with you; I don't believe it is possible to make a zombie. If it were possible then we would either need components that lack or don't contribute to intrinsic consciousness (if consciousness is an intrinsic property of matter or if consciousness is added via an immaterial soul) or components that lack or don't contribute to the functional organisation that gives rise to consciousness while possessing the functional organisation that gives rise to intelligent behaviour. It's an argument against zombies and against the substrate-dependence of consciousness. >> you could modify the >> thought experiment to replace all of the brain except for one neuron. >> In that case the replaced brain would be a full blown zombie, > > > No. I can replace all the atoms with zombie atoms and the brain is still a > normal conscious brain. > > >> but >> adding the single biological neuron would suddenly restore full >> consciousness. This is absurd, but it should be possible if zombies >> are possible. > > > I agree with your conclusion, but your argument seems to imply that since > zombies are impossible, zombie components are impossible and so quarks must > have an element of consciousness. It invites the fallacy of slipping from > 'contributes to consciousness' to 'has consciousness'. No, I don't think quarks are either conscious or zombies. I think consciousness arises necessarily from intelligent behaviour. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Re: what is mechanism?
On 09 Apr 2012, at 16:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 08.04.2012 21:32 Bruno Marchal said the following: ... This is well illustrated in this (one hour) BBC broadcast, featuring Marcus de Sautoy (who wrote a nice book on the "music of the primes"). (thanks to the salvianaut linking to this in a salvia forum) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E Despite being mathematicians, de Sautoy still believes he is flesh and bones, and that consciousness is neuronal activity. His reasoning are valid, but uses implicitly both mechanism and the aristotelian conception of reality. That can't work (cf UDA). Bruno, I believe that now I understand what physicalism is. What would you recommend to read about mechanism? Something like this SEP paper about physicalism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ Yes, it is a good description of physicalism. For mechanism such type of media are not aware of the UDA argument, so you have to understand it by yourself, by reading my papers, or this list. New idea or result take time to be accepted, especially when they cross different disciplinaries. I can give you many titles of books and papers---or you can find them in the references in my thesis, or papers. But mechanism is defended mostly by materialist and they use the mechanist assumption mainly to burry the mind-body problem. The subject is hot, and authoritative-argument are frequent. On the contrary, I use computationalism only to *formulate* the mind- body problem, and the UD Argument shows that mechanism (digital mechanism, aka computationalism) is incompatible with physicalism. In fact mechanism provides the conceptual explanation of how the laws of physics have to be generated, if comp is true, but not as applying to some "reality", but as connecting in some way the many minds of numbers (aka digital "machine" in the mathematical sense of Church Turing Post). I have just sent UDA step 0 to the FOAR list, so you can still climb on the wagon. Except that it is not easy to link to it (how can Google- group be so hard to use?). UDA step 0 is the definition of (digital) mechanism. If you google directly on UDA step 0, you will find the introduction to mechanism I did for an entheogen forum. Gosh, the new Google group presentation is even worst. And if I click for Google+, everything is in Dutch ... ... I miss so much the old Escribe, where each individual posts get a link. That was simple and efficacious. I hate to advertize my work, but then, if it is flawless, it is in advance of what you can find in the dictionaries and media. I reduce the mind-body problem to an problem of justifying the number's belief in a physical reality, without postulating it. I guess you have the link to the sane paper: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html If you search motivation for mechanism and computationalism, you can find tuns of paper on that issues, in library and on the net. Mechanism is already discussed by the Chinese and the Indians since many thousand of years, and Diderot's definition of rationalism is just mechanism. It is often opposed to superstition or belief in actual divine intervention. Anderson's selected paper on "Minds and Machines" was not bad. It contains the paper by Putnam on functionalism, which is often another name for computationalism. I make a distinction, though, by making explicit that computationalism is defined by the existence of a substitution level, and I explain that the choice of the level does not change the conceptual "reversal" consequence. Usually, neuro-philosophers assume some high, neuronal, levels, but the consequences I explain can be derived from any levels (even sub- quantum level). Yet, the choice of the level can influence the shape of the physical laws, so that we can indirectly measure our substitution level by comparing the physics "observed" with the indirect consequences of comp on the physical laws, or simply with the physics derived from comp (but this asks for progress in that direction). Perhaps the book closer to comp, as I understand it, is the book "Mind's I" edited by Hofstadter and Dennett. They missed the reversal, but present good introductory thought experience going in the correct direction with many valid points. As for movie, they mix everything up, for they presume that consciousness starts at the self level. I agree. It is my main critics. This is why I like Gray's book where he distinguish between three different conscious processes. 1) Reconstruction of the external world. ... that he seems to assume. From what you said, I think Gray is still physicalist. But as I insist, this forces him to postulate some non comp hypothesis, which nobody has ever done, except for the theories based explicitly on fairy tales. To be fair, some people try to develop a notion of analogical
Re: deism and Newton
On 4/9/2012 7:28 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 08.04.2012 19:55 meekerdb said the following: On 4/8/2012 5:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... I believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context. As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empirical values (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematics that was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agree with observations. Right. There was no "clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions." There was a clash between Newton's calculations of the consequences of his laws and the actual consequences. It depends on how you define fact. Imagine that at Newton's time the ideal scientific standards would have been accepted. I don't know what you mean by 'ideal scientific standards'. Then his idea and his paper have been just rejected. "Okay, your idea is nice but you have to work on it some more to make it scientific." Don't you agree? No. The scientists then were not fools. They were well aware that observational data has errors in it. They could recognize that accounting for the gravitational influence of one planet on another was mathematically intractable, so even if the theory were exactly right the approximations necessary to get solutions would not be exact (the same problem with string theory). This is Feyerabend's point, that the Newton laws have been just ad hoc hypotheses, nothing more. That's a silly remark. Newton's insight was that things fell down on the surface of the Earth and if the same for extended out indefinitely it would pull down on the Moon too. But if the Moon was moving fast enough it wouldn't fall to the Earth it would fall around the Earth in an orbit. You cannot say that they come from observations, as they have contradicted to the observations at that time. Newton was influenced by the observation that orbits were ellipses (approximately) and his 1/r^2 law produced ellipses. The most interesting that "Who cares?". The Newton laws have been accepted by the scientific community long time before they have been brought in agreement with observations. But they were never 'brought into agreement' by your 'ideal' standards. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was never explained until Einstein, although people tried postulating an unobserved planet to account for it. "But this meant that Newton's theory gave correct results only when used in an ad hoc way. It did not reveal a feature of universe. Did scientists give up? No. The theory was plausible, it had astonishing successes so it retained despite the fact that, taken literally, it led to absurdities. Besides, many scientists were interested in predictions only and did not care about a metaphysical notion like 'reality'." So, to state that a theory is driven by the facts is actually wrong. No one has stated that. Theory is tested by the facts. In the historical context, the facts are actually driven by a theory. All observations depend on some theory, but not necessarily on the theory being tested. It happens the same way nowadays. Take for a example the superstring theory. It is has not been driven by facts in any way. Or this notion that information is equivalent to the thermodynamic entropy. It has nothing to do with facts at all. Still trying to ride that horse? It's your loss if you can't see the connection. Hence his use of God. This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. If we assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written as equations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this whole story seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about the history of Newton's laws according to the quote from http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf (the references are in pdf) "Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist only materially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed to correspond to physical states of our brain and, as such, should ultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemical laws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped at birth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] He postulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2, 3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, along with a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position is defended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explain mathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive from neural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervous system contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughts of particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets and other mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms, but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the development of pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seek t
Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
On 4/9/2012 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:10 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 4/8/2012 6:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdbwrote: But is it an empirical question? What would it mean for "neuroscience to find zombies"? We have some idea what it would mean to find a soul: some seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any physical cause. But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to find that it was not conscious. I think if we had a very detailed understanding of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot or a zombie android at the same level and say something like, "This zombie probably experiences numbers differently than people." But if it truly acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the difference was. Of course humans don't all act the same, some have synesthesia for example. So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with colors - but this would show up in the zombies actions too. It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie; That doesn't follow. It assmes that zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization. There can obviously be zombie (unconscious) components (e.g. quarks and electrons) which when properly assembled produce conscious beings. So the inference doesn't go the other way; the existence of zombie components doesn't imply you can make a zombie, partial or otherwise. A zombie brain component is a component that replicates the function of the tissue it replaces but does not replicate its contribution to consciousness, such as it may be. The visual cortex is necessary for visual perception since if we remove it we eliminate vision. A zombie visual cortex replicates the I/O behaviour at the cut interface of the removed tissue but does not contribute to consciousness. If whole zombies are possible then it should be possible to make such a component. If you say the brain as a whole would have normal consciousness even though the component didn't This is where I find your argument confusing. Consider an atom in the brain. Can you replace it with a zombie atom? It doesen't matter, so long as it acts like a normal atom it will contribute to consciousness. The brain as a whole will have normal consciousness even though the atom doesn't. But the consciousness never depended on the atom *having* consciousness - only on the atom *contributing* to consciousness (by having the same functional behavior). you could modify the thought experiment to replace all of the brain except for one neuron. In that case the replaced brain would be a full blown zombie, No. I can replace all the atoms with zombie atoms and the brain is still a normal conscious brain. but adding the single biological neuron would suddenly restore full consciousness. This is absurd, but it should be possible if zombies are possible. I agree with your conclusion, but your argument seems to imply that since zombies are impossible, zombie components are impossible and so quarks must have an element of consciousness. It invites the fallacy of slipping from 'contributes to consciousness' to 'has consciousness'. Brent -- 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.
Re: what is mechanism?
On 08.04.2012 21:32 Bruno Marchal said the following: ... This is well illustrated in this (one hour) BBC broadcast, featuring Marcus de Sautoy (who wrote a nice book on the "music of the primes"). (thanks to the salvianaut linking to this in a salvia forum) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E Despite being mathematicians, de Sautoy still believes he is flesh and bones, and that consciousness is neuronal activity. His reasoning are valid, but uses implicitly both mechanism and the aristotelian conception of reality. That can't work (cf UDA). Bruno, I believe that now I understand what physicalism is. What would you recommend to read about mechanism? Something like this SEP paper about physicalism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ As for movie, they mix everything up, for they presume that consciousness starts at the self level. This is why I like Gray's book where he distinguish between three different conscious processes. 1) Reconstruction of the external world. 2) Feelings. 3) Cognitive conscious experiences. The third points adds nothing to the first two, hence he ignores it in his book. Evgenii -- 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.
Re: deism and Newton
On 08.04.2012 19:55 meekerdb said the following: On 4/8/2012 5:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... I believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context. As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empirical values (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematics that was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agree with observations. Right. There was no "clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions." There was a clash between Newton's calculations of the consequences of his laws and the actual consequences. It depends on how you define fact. Imagine that at Newton's time the ideal scientific standards would have been accepted. Then his idea and his paper have been just rejected. "Okay, your idea is nice but you have to work on it some more to make it scientific." Don't you agree? This is Feyerabend's point, that the Newton laws have been just ad hoc hypotheses, nothing more. You cannot say that they come from observations, as they have contradicted to the observations at that time. The most interesting that "Who cares?". The Newton laws have been accepted by the scientific community long time before they have been brought in agreement with observations. "But this meant that Newton's theory gave correct results only when used in an ad hoc way. It did not reveal a feature of universe. Did scientists give up? No. The theory was plausible, it had astonishing successes so it retained despite the fact that, taken literally, it led to absurdities. Besides, many scientists were interested in predictions only and did not care about a metaphysical notion like 'reality'." So, to state that a theory is driven by the facts is actually wrong. In the historical context, the facts are actually driven by a theory. It happens the same way nowadays. Take for a example the superstring theory. It is has not been driven by facts in any way. Or this notion that information is equivalent to the thermodynamic entropy. It has nothing to do with facts at all. Hence his use of God. This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. If we assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written as equations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this whole story seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about the history of Newton's laws according to the quote from http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf (the references are in pdf) "Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist only materially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed to correspond to physical states of our brain and, as such, should ultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemical laws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped at birth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] He postulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2, 3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, along with a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position is defended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explain mathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive from neural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervous system contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughts of particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets and other mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms, but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the development of pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seek to derive all our mathematical thoughts from purely physical connections between neurons." The same view expounded by W. S. Cooper's book "The Origin of Reason" which I have recommended. Brent I see some problems along this way. Let us consider the story with Newton laws in this context. Laplace was able to create a new mathematical theory that did not exist at Newton's time. What does it mean? That there was a gene mutation for time being between Newton and Laplace? Or that Nature has made natural neural networks in abundance already at ancient times and Newton just failed to employ full capabilities of his brain? Also let us take my experiment with two mathematicians, I have made now a nice picture to this end, see slide 26 http://embryogenesisexplained.com/files/presentations/Rudnyi2012.pdf The theory above means that Pi exist only when mathematicians' brains are running. Yet, it seems that a mathematical theory due to inexorable laws describes the experiment correctly even at the state when mathematicians are dead. Evgenii -- 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
Re: Primitive Awareness and Symmetry
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:10 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/8/2012 6:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> But is it an empirical question? What would it mean for "neuroscience to >>> find zombies"? We have some idea what it would mean to find a soul: some >>> seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any >>> physical >>> cause. But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to find >>> that it was not conscious. I think if we had a very detailed >>> understanding >>> of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot or a >>> zombie android at the same level and say something like, "This zombie >>> probably experiences numbers differently than people." But if it truly >>> acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the >>> difference >>> was. Of course humans don't all act the same, some have synesthesia for >>> example. So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with colors >>> - >>> but this would show up in the zombies actions too. >> >> It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it >> isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached >> analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components >> would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it >> would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie; > > > That doesn't follow. It assmes that zombieness is an attribute of > components rather than of their functional organization. There can > obviously be zombie (unconscious) components (e.g. quarks and electrons) > which when properly assembled produce conscious beings. So the inference > doesn't go the other way; the existence of zombie components doesn't imply > you can make a zombie, partial or otherwise. A zombie brain component is a component that replicates the function of the tissue it replaces but does not replicate its contribution to consciousness, such as it may be. The visual cortex is necessary for visual perception since if we remove it we eliminate vision. A zombie visual cortex replicates the I/O behaviour at the cut interface of the removed tissue but does not contribute to consciousness. If whole zombies are possible then it should be possible to make such a component. If you say the brain as a whole would have normal consciousness even though the component didn't you could modify the thought experiment to replace all of the brain except for one neuron. In that case the replaced brain would be a full blown zombie, but adding the single biological neuron would suddenly restore full consciousness. This is absurd, but it should be possible if zombies are possible. >> for >> example, that was blind but behaved normally and did not realise it >> was blind. > > > There are people like. But they are not partial zombie's. You say "blind > but behaved normally" implying they behaved just as if sighted - but that's > impossible. I agree it's impossible and that's why I think functionalism is right and zombies impossible. >> If partial zombies are possible then we could be partial >> zombies. > > > Because we 'behave normally' without being able to see the polarization of > light? We don't behave as if we can see it. I'm not sure what you mean here. A zombie behaves as if it perceives everything a conscious being does and nothing a conscious being doesn't, while not actually having any perceptions at all. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
God as an Atheist.
If your God is dead, try mine. =. God as an Atheist. God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments. ===. Can a Rational Individual believe in God ? In other words: Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws? Of course Because if God exists, He/She/It would necessarily to work in an Absolute Reference Frame and had set of physical and mathematical laws to create everything in the Universe. If we find and understand this Absolute God’s House then is possible step by step to find and understand God’s Physics Laws, which Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein and many others scientists discovered. # Has God known the formula: E=Mc^2 ? If God has known the formula why HE / SHE /IT didn't write it in His Bible? =.. The people created a God. No one knows what the external characteristics of this God are, a God who made himself known with the name " I am who I am ". Is it enough for us in the XXIc ? Why wasn’t the formula E=Mc^2 written in the Bible? ===. . Each religion uses a system of symbols (images, metaphors, ancient myths and legends , beautiful stories) to explain its truth. But Bernard Shaw wisely remarked : “ There is only one religion, although there are a hundred versions of it.” It means that the source of all religion is one. And I try to prove this idea with the formulas and laws of physics. I don’t invent new formulas. I use simple formulas which ,maybe, every man knows from school. Is it possible? Is it enough? Yes. Because the evolution goes from simple to the complex. So, in the beginning we can use simple formulas and laws. For this purpose I explain what the first law of Universe is, and second law is and ...etc. Step by step I create a logical system of the Universe. = . . How can God be Scientist? Scheme, Fundamental Theory of Existence: Ten Scientific Commandments. 1 The infinite Vacuum T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ . 2 The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k, E = Mc^2 = kc^2, h = 0, c=0, i^2= -1 3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi 4 The photon, the inertia: h=1, c=1 5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , c>1 electromagnetic field 6 The gravitation, the star, the time and space: h*f = kTlogW 7 The Proton: (p) 8 The Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton a) electromagnetic b) nuclear c) biological 9 The Laws a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law 10 The test. Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically a) Theory of brain: Dualism of Consciousness. b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation. . Best wishes Israel Sadovnik Socratus . # "God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light." It means: The secret of God and Existence is hidden in the ‘ Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta ‘. # I want to know how God created this world I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details / Einstein / ==. -- 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.
Re: Review of Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem
Source of Consciousness. Will Physics explain Consciousness? =. Does consciousness begin on big bang level? Does consciousness begin on the quarks level? In our earthly world there is only one fundamental particle - electron. Does an electron have consciousness ? At first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions. But . . . . . Energy is electromagnetic waves (em). In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron The electron and the em waves they are physical reality Can evolution of life begin on electron’s level? We say: Molecular biology & molecular evolution, Cosmology & cosmic evolution. If Universe evolve can electron evolve too ? Does evolution of life begin on electron level ? Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe Electron takes important part in this work Question: Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas: E=h*f, e = +ah*c, e = -ah*c, +E=Mc^2, -E=Mc^2, E= ∞ ? Nobody knows Question: Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass b) Maxwell’s equations c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law e) Fermi-Dirac statistics Nobody knows. . Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations: "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." . Ladies and Gentlemen ! Friends ! The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are. =. Once again: Brain and Electron. Human brain works on two levels: consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction between billions and billions neurons ). It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two situations is different. How can we understand these different states of neurons? How does the brain generate consciousness? We can understand this situation only on the quantum level, only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ? Nobody knows. Therefore I say: we must understand not only the brain but electron too. And when we understand the Electron we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality. =. According to Pauli Exclusion Principle only one single electron can be in the atom. If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins". Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such cells. And therefore the human brain has only one Electron. Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it. As the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ says: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be. / Chapter 9. Text 11./ # Where is the root of consciousness? At what step does consciousness begin? The consciousness begins on electron’s level. An electron (quantum of light) has its own initial consciousness. This consciousness is not rigid, but can develop. The development of consciousness goes “from vague wish up to a clear thought” / Veda./ == . Best wishes Israel Sadovnik Socratus ==. P.S. Robert Milliken, who measured a charge of electron, in his Nobel speech ( 1923 ) told, that he knew nothing about the “last essence of electron”. # Question: Does DNA Know Geometry ? # The verse: The world of electron. But maybe these electrons are World, where there are five continents: the art, knowledge, wars, thrones and the memory of forty centuries. / Valery Brusov./ ===… -- 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.
Re: Two Mathematicians in a Bunker and Existence of Pi
Where does the information come from? / Quantum Theory as Quantum Information / ===… # Does information begin on the quarks level? No. Quark cannot leave an atom. Maybe does proton have quant of information? No. Single proton has no quant of information. Why? Because information can be transfered only by electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory about protono-magnetic fields. # In our earthly world there is only one fundamental particle - electron who can transfer information. Can an electron be quant of information? Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions. But . . . . . Energy is electromagnetic waves (em). In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron The electron and the em waves they are physical reality == # 1900, 1905 Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c. 1928 Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy: +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2. According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s energy is infinite: E= ∞ Questions. Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ? Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass b) Maxwell’s equations c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law e) Fermi-Dirac statistics #. What is an electron ? Now nobody knows In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron All of them are problematical We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics. But how can we trust them if we don’t know what is electron ? . Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations: "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." . Ladies and Gentlemen ! Friends ! Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are. ==. # We know, there is no information transfer without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant information transfer without quant energy transfer. And the electron has the least electric charge. It means it has some quant of the least information. What can electron do with this information? Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table. We can see that electron interacts with proton and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design, which was created by electron. And we can see how this information grows and reaches high informational level. And the most complex design, which was created by electron is the Man. The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences. And an atom? And atom is also alive design. The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds. And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man. Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles " but to understand what the electron is, because even now nobody knows what electron is. === In my opinion the Electron is quant of information. Was I mistaken?No ! Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle only one single electron can be in the atom. This electron reanimates the atom. This electron manages the atom. If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins". Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children! Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it. # Many years ago man has accustomed some wild animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.) and has made them domestic ones. But the man understands badly the four-footed friends. In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron. Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him. But the man does not understand what an electron is. By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and then to study the far away space and another particles. ==. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. Socratus. =… P.S. Robert Milliken, who measured a charge of electron, in his Nobel speech ( 1923 ) told, that he knew nothing about the “last essence of electron”. # The verse: The world of electron. But maybe these electrons are World, where there are five continents: the art, knowledge, wars, thrones and the memory of forty centuries. / Valery Brusov./ ===… -- 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
