Re: Revisiting Kurzweil

"Ray Gardener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > So you are basically opting for a Searle-ian or Penrose-ian notion of
> > subjective experience. Did you contrast your view with theirs?
>
> I haven't had a chance to read Penrose yet. But I agree in that I believe
> there is something our measurements haven't taken into account yet where
> brain tissue is concerned. We can make neurons that transform and transfer
> Information, but not Mind.
Yes thinking is copying of copies of copies, combining with gain and loss
and falling
apart. This happens at the low LOD (level of detail) of the physical
molecules.
And emerging higer with gan and loss at higher LODs. And in fact the
complexity
loses with echt step to a higher LOD info. Psychology is maybe a less
complex
study then the quantum theories. So superposition is a wrong notion, only
very
locally we can do it.
I hope you all have read that already famous doc

http://nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-layr

The result is I''m alsi busy with another quantum theory. I accept the
measurements but the theories are full of holes.

> I suspect that the brain doesn't need to have subjective experience, it
just
> happens to because of evolutionary pressure.
Exactly as a by product and an extra tool. Like conscioousness as well.
>Nature would select for
> organisms whose brains do a better job of allowing the inherent Mind of
its
> particles to form a larger Mind capable of providing those organisms
> subjective experience. So over time, the brain develops the features and
> organizational style it has to better facilitate that emergence.
Yes.
>
> We could picture the brain as a special type of computer in that its
output
> is not directed back towards the environment (at least where visual data
is
> concerned), but rather internally into something else, which then
reflects.
> But this reflection stage cannot be another information processing stage,
> because the information has already been processed. And it is this
> reflection stage or entity that represents Mind. Call it "the buck stops
> here" model, if you will.

Yes, we have pictures in our head they are input and also output. So Ray.

I think you are again right in this.

> Another idea I had was that (to help better explain the QM nature of large
> molecules and the ongoing difficulty of understanding atomic/molecular
> interactions)

Often chemists don't use anymore the QM nature but an easier to use
pseudo mechanism, hybridization. The use the losing aspect of physical
emerging.

> is that particles do not remain decoherent even when they are
> in contact with other particles. Since they are all always in some slight
> motion, there are always brief moments when a particle is sufficiently
> "alone" to revert back to its wave form. So the particles keep wavering
> (extremely rapidly) between wave and particle existence.

A wave is for me kind of chance machine that a probing signal can awake, and
a particle emerges. Often with loss of energy or other particles.

Field is in time a prephase of a particle. A field is a not-yet particle.
And in my new math branch it can lose glue, by radiating it, and become
a field. A particle needs for staying a particle fields from other particles
else it can become dark matter.

I email about these things with a lot of scientists.

This happens in my new math branch.

 There can even be
> moments when all the atoms in a molecule exist as waves, however briefly.
> Carbon-based molecules in particular may enhance this property -- carbon
has
> long been noted as quite the special element by physicists in the nature
of
> how it bonds.

C is special, that's right. How can you test that, Ray, a whole molecule in
a
field state, will it not fall apart then? Or is it too short in that state?

And why do you need that?
>
> This means that macroscopic entities exist as waves for a diminishing
> percentage of time related to their size. So in one second, your brain
> exists as a wave for only a few Planck units of time. But because this
> happens over and over again, a persistent subjective experience is
> maintained. There is always a "whole" that reigns over the mere sum of the
> parts.

We say the parts can't escape, they live on the same ship, when we die all
of us dies and the regimes of the environment take over our regimes. We live
on a distance to the reality. A mark of live.

But why do you need that feeble state? Can you see that in an experiment?

>
> This happens to computers as well, except that they are not organized to
let
> their data be absorbed by any quantum processes.

So my question is why do you need all becomes in a wave form.

Waves come from particles. Without particle, no waves. Particles without
waves
yes, dark matter. So matter looks me more fundamental.
>
> Ray

A nice discussion again, thanks for it

Ed