Jim, Correct, I'm working on it...
Edgar On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:51 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > The emergent property theory merely says, "We don't know, so we assume that > it somehow just happens, and nobody had better contradict us." > > Actually, if there really is an emergent property, then it is possible to > accurately model how the emergence occurs. For example, we might say that > going down the street is an emergent property of a car, and we were going to > just stop with that idea. That would be almost a magical kind of thinking. > > But there would be an alternative. We could find out what all the parts of > the car were, and develop a theory which said exactly how each part worked > together to produce the emergent property of going down the street. > > So, which would be the more constructive approach? > > Jim > > --- In [email protected], ChrisAustinLane <chris@...> wrote: > > > > 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" <jfnewell7@...> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
