I suspect that consciousness is an emergent property like wetness. There does not need to be any display - when the appropriate neurons fire in my head, I see red.
The google result was a neuron (well a cell in a big neural net program) that fired when presented by faces. No pixels invoked There are certainly a lot of different processing systems in the head. Still the wonderful moment of awareness. In physics the word theory is a pretty strongly specified model of the world - Penrose's ideas about consciousness do not really make it up to that level of specificity. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Oct 10, 2012, at 17:41, "jfnewell7" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
