The brain processes information very well, so of course, the brain does identify objects. The problem is not in the processing abilities. The problem is in the final display of the results. For example, of one looks at a computer screen, the pixels are integrated into images. But the pixels on the computer screen are not integrated directly on the screen all by themselves. They are all in a separated display. It is the human who turns the pixels into an image, not the computer screen.
The brain, and computers, can process information. They just can't display information in a truly integrated way. What I am talking about is a person being a dual processor system. The brain does a lot of processing. Conscious then does information processing using different processes. The two together produce a better result than a single processor would. I am completely at sea as to what consciousness is. I assume that it is a natural process that our physical instruments can't detect at this time. There is nothing new in that. Not long ago, we couldn't detect neutrinos in the laboratory. At this time, we can detect neither dark matter nor dark energy in the laboratory. But, in the future, we might be able to detect those, if our other data continues to suggest that dark matter and dark energy exist. However, there are just a few interesting results if one just looks at the interaction of the two processors that we can detect. It produces a limited theory, however, and that means that a vast amount of research remains to be done. I assume that nobody is interested in my going into detail. There is no reason to except being interested in finding new knowledge. Nothing I have discovered is needed for people to make progress, and none of it has a commercial application. Jim --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: > > Just to be clear here there is not currently a Quantum Theory of > Consciousness that is proposed - we don't understand the mechanics of > consciousness, and Penrose pointed out a resemblance between this lack and > the lack of understanding of what the "decoherence/wave collapse" operation > corresponds to in the formalism. (Edgar will now point out that there is a > theory of wave collapse that he likes, but it's not an undisputed theory > either - and there are a lot of interesting gaps in the ground covered by > quantum field theory at the moment). > > Google has built a vision processor with about 1/1,000,000th the power of > the human visual cortex and showed it 20 million you-tube stills and it > ended up with "human face" neurons, "cat face" neurons, and "human body > neurons" - there is nothing in the computational structure (known) of the > brain that rules out seeing, with all of its red-ness or cat-ness. > > Wave your hand around and look at it, and marvel. > > Thanks, > > --Chris > chris@... > +1-301-270-6524 > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM, jfnewell7 <jfnewell7@...> wrote: > > > If the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true, which it might or might > > not be, and if it doesn't connect to a further process, which might or > > might not be, then some quantum effects must have qualities such as > > redness, blueness, middle-c-ness, rose-odorness etc. The reason would be > > because nerve impulses don't have such qualities, but subjective images and > > other percepts do have those qualities. So the qualities we perceive would > > have to be from the quantum processes. However, it is possible that the > > quantum processes merely link the neurons with a third natural information > > processor which does have qualities. > > > > Jim > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm more interested in qualta than quanta...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill et al, > > > > > > > > Roger Penrose originated a quantum theory of consciousness which > > claims consciousness arises because certain neural processes operate at the > > quantum level. > > > > > > > > It's a nonsense theory... > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > > > This all sounds like a bunch of gobbedy-gook to me. For example I've > > never heard of a 'quantum theory of consciousness' nor do can I conceive of > > such a thing. Besides affirming to you that all of these concepts are > > illusory and even if they are discussed in some circle have nothing to do > > with Buddha Nature, I'll defer on the rest of this to Edgar and maybe Joe, > > and anyone else who wants to take it on. > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > One:: I am assuming that since consciousness and the physical > > exchange energy, they must have serious commonalities, such as having the > > same ground or one being the ground of the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this assumption seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > Two:: The expansion of space itself seems to be accelerating due > > to a not understood cause called dark energy at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > My impression is that the acceleration in the expansion of space > > is orderly to the point of seeming coordinated over a few billion light > > years. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > > > > > > > > > Three:: The bending of space involves more stretching on the > > outside of the curve than one the inside of a curve, which gravitational > > lensing involves galaxies as well as smaller bodies. The bending seems to > > be orderly to the point of seeming coordinated across on the order of as > > much as 100,000 light years. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > > > > > > > > > Four:: If the above processes are in fact orderly, how could that > > happen? > > > > > > > > > > > > Five:: To be able to expand and bend, space must have an > > adequately low level of stiffness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this seem true? > > > > > > > > > > > > Six:: If space isn't stiff enough, it couldn't coordinate itself > > by a process of or in space over the great distances noted above. If space > > were too stiff, it couldn't expand and bend to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a level of space which could explain the orderliness over > > great distances of the expansion and bending of space? If so, the analysis > > ends here. If not, see below. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seven:: The quantum theory of consciousness holds that the effects > > propagate faster than the speed of light. If that is true, then the quantum > > processes transcend the aspect of space which involves the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > Eight:: A transcendent process propagating faster than the speed > > of light might be able to coordinate the expansion and bending of space > > even when space could not coordinate its own expansion and bending over the > > long distances discussed above. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this seem like a reasonable possibility? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nine:: Such a quantum process is the only explanation I can see at > > the moment, which tends to confirm it, but something new might be > > discovered in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that seem to be reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ten: If the same quantum processes are involved with > > consciousness, which involves the Buddha-nature, and also involves the > > expansion and bending of space over long distances, then there is a deep > > connection between the Buddha-nature and the expansion and bending of space > > over long distances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that logical step seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
