View Full Version : The Proof that a Quantum Model of the Brain is Required that is Non-Classical
(Only a physicist studying this field, would understand the need to know whether the brain requires a model of non-classical means or not)
space-matter-time-energy-mind
It is said in relativity, that spacetime is in fact one thing with energy as space-matter-time-energy. Now with the new physics, no longer are they four, but mind is added to the one force:
space-matter-time-energy-mind
Actually, I am not the first to posit this. Dr. Wolf also makes the relation in his book, ‘’Mind into Matter.’’
The reality we see, smell and touch are built up on senses. Thus, the optical bubble of perception isn't the real physical outside world. The world we see is actually a mental projection > one that is created through a series of complicated processes. Somehow, the eye captures a two-dimensional image and casts it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception, and how it does this, is still a mystery to neuroscientists.
More physical processes are involved, at the microscopic level. When a photon (a particle of light) hits off the retina, changes occur inside of the cells. A molecule called the Cis-Retinal changes into a Trans-Retinal; it isn't a chemical change, but rather a change in the spatial structure of the molecule. This changes a protein that is already present in the cells of the retina, and this protein attaches itself to another protein, because of a chemical change in the original protein. More happens.
Molecules are cut in half, which in turn causes electrical channels to become closed off; and this series of events causes an electrical imbalance, which is then transported through electrolyte and nerve activity to the brain. This is all quite amazing. To think a picture from the outside world has to go through so many changes to reach the brain. Something which is even more amazing is that the process needs to be reversed! The reason for this is because if it didn't, a cell in the retina could only ever be used once. This regeneration allows our eyes to use a cell over and over again. Some of these cells will be used for color perception. Other's black and white. But how the brain processes this mixed information is still one of the biggest mysteries concerning this area of science.
What is even more interesting is the ''binding problem'' of quantum physics. How does the mind not only make sense of this information, but bind it together into a smooth continuous perception, rather than discontinuous flashes of awareness? The brain really is quite complex when one considers these things.
Nevertheless, one cannot escape the beauty of consciousness' ability to 'recreate' space and time in its own projection of the external world. In fact, more and more physicists are attempting to treat the mind with its own spacetime continuum. However, there are not many models or mathematical basis for consciousness around. It is still an on-going, difficult problem. One just doesn't know how to; and for those who do, tread this yellow brick road with careful coordinated steps to the wizard of quantum.
And I hope, from my following conclusions of whether the mind requires a non-classical model, that the academia will consider its implications seriously:
‘’It is absolutely, and ridiculously useless to consider a non-classical frame for the mind, when in the end, the ultimatum is that non-classical actions determine any result of consciousness, in the state of that single photon, a two dimensional object of information transverses into the three dimensional phenom of the neural networks. So in any model of consciousness, it needs to take into account of these quantum actions, upon arrival at the retina, and therefore leaves the conclusion of a classical model of the brain retarded.’’
How can this be disputable?
And barely readable.
Since we have a professional like yourself, please do better.
Billy T
05-31-08, 04:32 PM
... So in any model of consciousness, it needs to take into account of these quantum actions, upon arrival at the retina, and therefore leaves the conclusion of a classical model of the brain retarded.’’
How can this be disputable? I do not think there are any even half-way adequate models of consciousness, but if one were created I doubt that quantum mechanics would be required. I.e. I think QM has nothing to do with how the brain makes a mind or gives you your perceptual experiences of life in a 3D external world. The accepted POV by the experts of cognitive science is that after many stages of neural transformations of sensory input information that transfomed information "emerges" to become our experienced perception. That is not only just "hand waving" but wrong in my opinion. Mankind does know a good deal about the early stages of neural transformations, especially of the visual information present in the 2D image on the retina. It is dissected into what are called "features" such as color (processed in cortex region called V5) and orientations of contrast edges of objects (found in V1 and processed further in V2)
The great mystery of perception is not the neuro-chemical- electrical processes occurring in the retina's rods and cones (that is rather well understood) nor even the dissection and segregation to different regions of the brain all the various "characteristics" of objects in the visual field. How the continuous 2D retinal pattern is "parsed" into separated objects is also reasonably well understood - at least I have described it AT THE NEUROLOGICAL LEVEL (not some verbal description, but in term of known interactions of nerves) 20 years ago in Johns Hopkins Un. published article.
The fundamental mystery of vision is how and where do these separately processed "characteristics” ever "rejoin" to become our unified perception. For example if a yellow pencil is sticking out of a red apple and color is separately processed in V5 (it is) from shape, then why do I not sometimes experience a red pencil sticking out of a yellow apple. This is what cognitive scientists refer to as "the binding problem." - Not what you called "binding” at all.
I have published a solution to all these problems, at the neurological level and was surprised that another even older problem's solution also "fell out" from my solution. Namely if every action and every thought is just the cumulative result of neural discharges in our nervous system and 100% of those discharges are just ions flowing under the laws of chemistry and physics, how is any "Genuine Free Will, GFW, possible? I.e. our every thought and action is a direct, unavoidable consequence of the current state of the neural system being ruled by chemistry and physics to produce or evolve the state of our neural system a moment later, etc. moment-by-moment as time passes.
Three solutions to this GFW problem have long been offered:
(1) GFW is an illusion - does not exist. Chemistry, physics and prior history do control how we react and evolve/think about/ the currently present external stimuli and internal mental processes (our thoughts etc.)
(2) We are not only material items, but a co-joined "soul" / "sprit" which not being material is not controlled by these physical laws. {I reject this POV as I have seen no evidence to support it.}
(3) We are controlled by these physical laws but because of quantum mechanics, the future is not determined by them. Chance decisions do occur and that is what we want to do, so in some sense we chose to do what we do think or do and thus we do have free will "to do as we chose." {I reject this also as it implies I could not chose otherwise. I.e. I did not really choose anything. I just did the inevitable and thought of it as my choice. I admit this can be called and does feel like "free will, but it is not what I refer to as GFW.} Some supporter of this POV have suggested the QM chance actions take place in the micro tubular "hairs" that do exist on surface of neural cells. they are so small that QM could play a role and exactly what they do is not well known; however, creatures very low on the evolutionary scale have them also.
I have a fourth solution. See it at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
It requires the acceptance of a new concept of yourself. I.e. you are not your physics body and not some immaterial "soul," but part of a Real Time Simulation, RTS, which the brain creates in parietal tissue when you are awake and when not in deep sleep. At other times, when the RTS is not running, you do not exist. You do exist when in dream sleep, but then the RTS is not making a nearly perfect (illusion do exist) simulation of the sensed external world as it does when you are awake and alert.
Only if you are immaterial is the conflict between GFW and physical laws avoidable without the "soul postulate." My solution to this old problem does NOT show that GFW does exist - only that it is not necessarily inconsistent with the physics laws. I.e. solution (1) above may well be the correct solution but there is much more physical evidence supporting the RTS than I give in the above link which is focused on GFW. That essay is condensed from only a tiny part of the original JHU paper on how visual processing achieves the perceived 3D world we all experience. That paper is Ref. 1 at the end of the text at the end of the above link. Be warned: the text at the link is not short, but if interested in these question you should read it to learn a self consistent POV, rather than the internally conflicting POV most scientists hold. – Most people (100%?) who both think they have GFW and yet also believe that the world is controlled by physical laws, rather than some “higher spirit,” are not logical.
''physics body and not some immaterial "soul," but part of a Real Time Simulation, RTS, which the brain creates in parietal tissue ''
This is spooky. I was devising possible idea's about half an hour ago using real time and imaginary constructs, that relate to specific points in absolute spacetime.
As for the rest, can i return tomorrow? I am tired, and i need sleep.
Billy T
06-01-08, 08:00 PM
'...As for the rest, can i return tomorrow? I am tired, and i need sleep.Sure. Please do. I hope you will read my essay, despite it being about 8 pages long with a clear head. Few here read it -that is their loss, IMHO. It is a unique idea, self consistent and explanatory of many different mysteries (From why our weaker, smaller-brained, ancestors killed of the Neanderthals to phantom limbs, hallucinations, optic illusion, etc. - dozen of mysteries "fall out" easily and naturally from my "crackpot" POV about how perception functions, even as mentioned here, how Genuine Free Will can be consistent with physics.
Hercules Rockefeller
06-01-08, 09:35 PM
Only a physicist studying this field, would understand the need to know whether the brain requires a model of non-classical means or not
http://hfboards.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif
Only a biologist/neurobiologist and who actually studies the brain and nervous systems would understand whether your rambling nonsense is total load of bull cookies or not.
I am, I do, it is.
Billy T
06-02-08, 04:15 PM
Hi Hercules:...Only a biologist/neurobiologist and who actually studies the brain and nervous systems would understand .... I am, I do, ...If you have time, please look at my essay at link below and tell me your opinion of it. I am not a neurobiologist,* but I have studied the visual system both from the POV of performance tests related to perception (lots of finding the X in a field of Os etc. – that sort of computer display stuff, once just brief colored light flashes for an old lady suffering from unilateral neglect due to a parietal stroke.) and the physiological layout and connections of everything behind the central sulcus related to vision.
For example, my theory of how perception works, predicts that the EEG signal known as P300 (or the "startle spike”) will be strongest over the parietal cortex (and it is) it also explains (almost requires) the otherwise totally strange retrograde neural connections coming back to visual cortex from the parietal region (they are slightly more numerous than the input of the eyes coming via the LGN) and several other neurological facts are also mentioned in my essay at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
You are one of the few active here with the ability and knowledge to point out errors I may have made or hopefully supply more modern related references. I had no professional interest in my theory/ POV. I have not even followed the literature for 20 years, but once I did.** After I became convinced that my "crackpot" POV did answer many questions and explain many mysteries that the more conventional theory of perception fails at, I ceased to be active in the area. I would really appreciate your comments.
-------
*I have held a human brain in my hands and assisted at quite a few operations on Rhesus brains – once had to finish one implant of stimulation electrodes (on the superior cerebellar surface) myself as the JHU neurosurgeon who ran this primate lab was called back to the hospital on a head injury case.
**In my one published paper in this field***, I may have been the first to describe AT THE NEROLOGICAL LEVEL, how objects are parsed from the continuous 2D retinal image, how the Gestalt law of “good continuation” is achieved by neural interactions, etc.
***Actually I am named as a co-author on a few papers I have never even read - that neurosurgen appreciated my free labor and help, so listed me on his papers related to that work.
Problem with nueroscientists, is that they think far too material. A quantum physicist would shoot you down, friend. Of course, there must be some reasoning behind this bullshit conclusion, so please tell. Don't leave the idiots like me wondering what the fuck you are on about.
I liked it Billy. Let me mull over it now.
Prince_James
06-02-08, 07:15 PM
Hercules Rockefeller:
Can you give us your academic affliation and other pertinent info? I'm interested.
Billy T
06-02-08, 08:48 PM
Hercules Rockefeller:
Can you give us your academic affliation and other pertinent info? I'm interested.And I in yours, if you know much about neurology and / or perception and will read and comment on my essay.
You may know mine but it seems only fair to tell, If I am asking. I have no formal training in neurophysics, nor cognitive sciences except for the year on scholarship I won, sort of a sebatical leave (with full pay), which I chose to spend in the Johns Hopkins cognative science department long afer getting my Ph.D in physics. I had grown tired of physics, in part becuase I was not doing any, but working on US Navy ship defeneses - I.e. how to best use their selfdefense weapons in computer simulations of battles, and occasionally asked to look into some of the weapon's control logic. (I did find an error in how the HARM missile responds to the defense of two radars alternating on and off trying to make the HARM hit neither. TI, who made the HARM, sent me a letter of thanks and fixed that error.)
I did spend most Saturadays for almost three years working for free in a large primated lab, called FRIENDS.
(originally I think the full names was Friends of psychiatric research) it was created separately during the MaCathry era as JHU did not want any more problems so it was set up entirely separately and always finacially struggling. They were glad to have me - initially I mainly feed monkeys, fixed an old EEG machine JHU had discarded, and supplied some electronic. We did not have money to buy some platium foil for electrodes we wanted to implant. So I proposed a project to the Navy program managers at APLJHU about measurement of the variation of electrical conductivity in the sea with depth. (Selling point was that a soviet sub that had passed even hours early might have left a wake disturbance in the conductivity and thus have its trail picked up. That was all done to get an excuse to buy platimum foil, most of which was made into electodes that ended up on the cerebellar surfaces of Rhesus monkeys! However, if any Navy auditors are reading, it did get deployed, at least experimentally, and was a good idea for the Navy to look into.
Prince_James
06-02-08, 09:51 PM
Billy T:
And I in yours, if you know much about neurology and / or perception and will read and comment on my essay.
I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher. As such, I can comment from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, but I cannot give you much in the way of cutting edge neuroscientific findings. I'd be glad to give the PoM answer, though, as I see fit to give it.
I am studying to get my Ph.D. None yet. So my list of credentials isn't nearly as intriguing as yours, you platinum foil rhesus monkey boy!
It requires the acceptance of a new concept of yourself. I.e. you are not your physics body and not some immaterial "soul," but part of a Real Time Simulation, RTS, which the brain creates in parietal tissue when you are awake and when not in deep sleep. At other times, when the RTS is not running, you do not exist. You do exist when in dream sleep, but then the RTS is not making a nearly perfect (illusion do exist) simulation of the sensed external world as it does when you are awake and alert.
i do not understand. give some analogies to this rts. perhaps some precedents to this line of thought. a virtual os running on vmware? what?
as far as i am concerned, it appears as if you have merely introduced a new label and stuck it on us. you shifted the hard problem to another layer. you appear to have explained nothing. furthermore by postulating this rts is created by the brain, that places you firmly in the materialist camp.
why would the brain do this? is it advantageous to mull rather than call it as it is?
Prince_James
06-02-08, 10:56 PM
Billy T:
I am 99 percent sure I all ready gave feed back on that essay a year ago. I remember. I brought up baseball and ping-pong and how they refute projecting ahead with compensation as such would be impossible.
Billy
After some time, i wanted to ask you:
The Real Time Simulations, are they tied to actual observations made in the real world?
If it does, again, its strange, because i was modelling some idea's that are consistant with the idea that it is irrelevant to even consider any notions where there is no reference between us, and what we measure...
Gustav
Yes, it may place some of his notions into a materialistic camp... ... ... but there is actually a growing idea in the mainstream right now, that thoughts and emotions may not be entirely ''stuck'' to the material brain, and somehow the vacuum also plays an intrical part. But it would be interesting to hear what Billy's notions are in his idea in the long run, considering the materialistic and non.
From Dr Wolfs Award Winning Book:
''It may seem impossible that your experience of reading these words at the moment might not arise from the framework of spacetime, but its true nonetheless...
..We have come to believe that all human experience is rooted from the physical world... you may be amazed when i tell you, there is no real proof to back up this conclusion, inspite of the onslaught of evidence of muscle activity in the brain...
... I am pointing to the one experience about which you are most certain... your awareness of being in a body at the moment.''
And he is right you know. The ''me'' is not a physical phenom, even if the ''me'' seeps out of the fabric of spacetime itself, from its distortions and creases...
I thought this quite adiquate right now, after what Gus raised.
I believe, that matter is required for consciousness to become independant in thought and experience. Independant of the one mind in creation... Wolf calls this the Mind of God. A subspacetime realm, where probability curves become possibilities. Its well accepted by the mainstream.
Matter and energy may just be there (among other reasons, but we are talking about mind and consciousness), to give a foundation of linear thought and linear experiences.
As we know, in physics, there is no such thing as a linear time existence, but somehow, the mind creates this illusion.
When mind entered matter and energy, mind began to function in a direct path, in a direct vector, in a distinct framework of a psychological arrow.
When this matter dies, the biological functions of the brain cease to operate, does the mind rally out of existence? The experience of consciousness may defy quantum rules, but the essence of consciousness cannot, and since we have a place in time and space, we must ask if our information, the network information of what we come to experience, really does dissappear, because we are insideously told by physics, that information is impervious, and cannot simply be destroyed.
But as wolf has informed us, there is no definate proof of a physical consciousness, nor is there any proof of it relying on space and time... that is... the latter has an acception i wish to share. And i will share it soon, along with some mathematical consclusions, i hope you will enjoy.
A few things to clarify first...
I believe that consciousness as we know it, requira non-classical physical model of physics.
But i also believe that consciousness as we know it, may take on a different form or existence without the function of matter.
Contradictory? Only if one states that consciousness is single-sided.
I believe, that matter is required for consciousness to become independant in thought and experience. Independant of the one mind in creation... Wolf calls this the Mind of God. A subspacetime realm, where probability curves become possibilities. Its well accepted by the mainstream.
Matter and energy may just be there (among other reasons, but we are talking about mind and consciousness), to give a foundation of linear thought and linear experiences.
As we know, in physics, there is no such thing as a linear time existence, but somehow, the mind creates this illusion.
When mind entered matter and energy, mind began to function in a direct path, in a direct vector, in a distinct framework of a psychological arrow.
When this matter dies, the biological functions of the brain cease to operate, does the mind rally out of existence? The experience of consciousness may defy quantum rules, but the essence of consciousness cannot, and since we have a place in time and space, we must ask if our information, the network information of what we come to experience, really does dissappear, because we are insideously told by physics, that information is impervious, and cannot simply be destroyed.
But as wolf has informed us, there is no definate proof of a physical consciousness, nor is there any proof of it relying on space and time... that is... the latter has an acception i wish to share. And i will share it soon, along with some mathematical consclusions, i hope you will enjoy.
I'll do this in small parts, because there is a lot to talk about, and since i am waiting on Billy to get back, and answer everyone.
.................................................. .....
Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories
Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory. I came up with the idea of treating the mind
as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so
crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called
spacetime theories.
I believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John
Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in
the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in
space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom.
The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime
My rule that unites spacetime, the subjective and objective dimensions, are brought together through the conclusion:
‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.
The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the absolute square of
the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’
((Billy)) - in very short words, the conclusion relates real time experiences, between the observer and the observed. Anything happenening inbetween, is irrelevent. See the connection?
Billy T
06-03-08, 02:50 PM
Quite a few words have appeared since my last post. I do not see meaning in or understand most, mainly because my POV is 100% materialist. I.e. nerves make the mind, consciousness, our perceptions and experiences is my POV.
The mind, consciousness, etc. have evolved so probably they are useful (or at least were) to our reproduction. In conflict with most cognitive scientist who also have this materialistic POV, I think parietal tissue produces a Real Time Simulation, RTS, of the sensed external world and ourselves (but some relatively slowing changing aspects of our selves, such as memory and personality, attitudes are likely to be inputs to this RTS from other parts of the brain, especially frontal cortex for aspect of our personality.)
The accepted POV is that the RTS does not exist - instead our perception "emerges" after many stages of neural transformations (processing) of sensor information, typically making perception delayed by about 1/3 of a second.
The advantage of a creature with RTS over one with only a 1/3 second delayed perception in a life or death struggle with spear and thrown rocks should be obvious. I think the RTS first developed in our ancestors and that is why they killed off the stronger, bigger-brained Neanderthals who still had a delayed perception of the world that "emerged." I also believe the RTS developed first in a small inbreeding group in Africa, that very rapidly on an evolutionary time scale, dominated the world in what is often called the "Out of Africa" event. about 50,000 years BP.
For more on this, including some of the evidence for this POV and reasons why the accepted POV must be wrong, see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
I will be happy to clarify your question about anything there, but cannot comment on how "space time" may related to consciousness etc. as that sort of thing is not any part of my POV, nor do I think Quantum Mechanics is evolved in any of this, but that is not certain. My POV about perception, what we are, etc. may make it possible logically for Genuine Free Will, GFW, to be compatible without appeal to "immaterial souls" etc, but I am not sure of this as the RTS must be implemented in material tissue with data stored in material tissue in my POV. If GFW exists, then this implementation can NOT be following any logical rules I am aware of, which are also contained in this material tissue, as then the entire system is material and governed by the laws of physics. I.e. it is deterministic if QM is unimportant and random if QM is important, but neither provides what I call GFW - an agent making real choices between two or more real possibilites.
Thus, I lean towards the POV that GFW is an illusion but there are logical systems that I do not understand. I.e. not all simple statements are either true or false. For example: "This sentence is false" is a simple declarative statement which has no "truth value" (is neither true nor false). Perhaps a logic exists containing a set of these self referencing statements (and/or other types) that can be embodied in a material system and yet not have all of its outcomes determined by the laws of physics? for GFW to exist an "agent" must exists and clearly only a physical body is not an agent capable of doing or thinking anything other that what the laws of physics cause.
Whether or not GFW is possible or only an illusion is not important to my POV as to how perception "works." I.e. I think the evidence for the RTS is over whelming; - that the standard POV of cognitive science is simply and demonstrably WRONG, but all "crackpots" think this about the accepted POV. :)
Billy T
06-03-08, 03:27 PM
Billy ...The Real Time Simulations, are they tied to actual observations made in the real world? ...I think yes, if I understand your question, but not sure what is meant by "tied."
We have evolved and this makes the RTS normally quite an accurate model of the sensed external world, but illusions do exist, drugs can distort our RTS to be quite in conflict with the external world etc. Also I think that the RTS is not well connected (or better “ignores”) most of the sensory information when we dream. Also usually the SRT is not controlling the body’s mussels during dreams.
No one knows why we dream. The most widely accepted ideas currently relate to "house keeping" and “storing / consolidating” of memories, but I think that with the disconnect from the limitation of the physical world, some "thinking outside of the box" is facilitated. I often intentionally think about some problem when I go to sleep and not rarely have a new idea or approach to the problem when I awake the next day.
I think yes, if I understand your question, but not sure what is meant by "tied."
We have evolved and this makes the RTS normally quite an accurate model of the sensed external world, but illusions do exist, drugs can distort or RTS to be quite in conflict with the external world etc. Also I think that the RTS is not well connected (or better “ignores”) most of the sensory information when we dream. Also usually the SRT is not controlling the body’s mussels during dreams.
No one knows why we dream. The most widely accepted ideas currently relate to "house keeping" and “storing / consolidating” of memories, but I think that with the disconnect from the limitation of the physical world, some "thinking outside of the box" is facilitated. I often intentionally think about some problem when I go to sleep.
Just about the latter for now.
Quantum mechanics does in fact have something to say about memories...
...for one, memories are not stored in something analogous to a record of files, but instead, any memory we do have, is ''recreated'' in the present, so each memory is new in the respect, that whenever we come to remember something, these are not thoughts/memories that are re-used...
Now, as for the ''tied'', it also said in QM that an observation on, for a classic example, on an atom, is made i real time. Whenever an object is not measured, or even a general reflection/observation in spacetime, it must exist as imaginary.
So for your real time simulational hypothesis, would it then generally have its own points in spacetime, where the observer and the observed, the external and internal, the subjective and objective meet, or as i put it, ''tie'' together...
(And by the way, i don't believe there is any free will either... just to clarify)
Billy T
06-03-08, 04:47 PM
...Quantum mechanics does in fact have something to say about memories...
...for one, memories are not stored in something analogous to a record of files, but instead, any memory we do have, is ''recreated'' in the present, so each memory is new in the respect, that whenever we come to remember something, these are not thoughts/memories that are re-used...
...So for your real time simulational hypothesis, would it then generally have its own points in spacetime, where the observer and the observed, the external and internal, the subjective and objective meet, or as i put it, ''tie'' together...In my POV everything exists in space time but that does not seem very relivant to me to an understand of perception.
I think perhaps you are not adequately noticing that we learn of objective world via relatively few and limited sensory tranducers. For example dozen of different radio signals are passing thru my body as I type, but that part of "objectiive reality" is not part of my perceptual reality. I.e. only via the senses are these two realities connnected or tied together at all.
The brain is presented with neural impulses and postualtes and objective reality to exist from them. It may not - that was the logically consistent POV of Bishop Berkely more than 300 years ago. I think there is a physical world and that my perception in the RTS automatically tries to mirror it because evolution selected for that.
I fail to see how QM plays any role in this. (unless I am doing some experiments with insturments that extend my senses so at the macro level so some meter or film etc. which I can sense will be changed by a QM probablistic event.)
I agree that much of memory is "reconstructed" experience but fail to see any QM process in this also. Obviously memories are not stored in something like a file to be opened and looked at - there is no one in the brain to open it and look - in some sense it must be re-experienced. There is evidence that the remembering process does re-activate some of the neural circuits that were active during the original experience. Where and how the information is stored to make this re-activation of them is not known.
Not only do I fail to see any role for QM in recall, but also I think I can remember the color a friends car or hair etc. at many different locations in "spacetime," so I do not understand why you are talking albout "spacetime."
CharonZ
06-03-08, 05:31 PM
I see not anything resembling proof in the OP. Only some over generalizations, a somewhat faulty description of retinal cell activities and then some ramblings that basically end with:
"There I wrote some stuff. Therefore I must be right. If do not see that you must be daft."
Bravo.
Emmm???
The photon must operate in a non-classical sense when it hits the retina. This is the reasoning behind why we need a model that is non-classical. Did you even pick that up?
And may i ask, you joined in 2003... and yet only 453 posts... you don't contribute very much...
Billy T
06-03-08, 08:13 PM
And may i ask, you joined in 2003... and yet only 453 posts... you don't contribute very much...CharonZ, is not retired, like me, but a professional researcher working full time - one of the most authorative, informed, if not the best informed, poster contributing here in the fields related to the basic processes of informatrion with in cells (DNA, mRNA sRNAi etc. and the associated technology...) One does not intelligently measure the magnitude of a contribuiton by post count, but by quality of the posts. Few here exceed him on that measure.
As far as your comments that here is some quantum mechanical nature to the photon absorption process in the retina, I think not. In fact it closely resembles the type of events that support the classical particle nature of the photon, such as the photo-electric effect. I.e. the photon's energy is, as if a particle, like that of a particle, as hits one rod or cone, not even like a classical wave. But even it were stimulating several photo sensors, as if a wave, that would still be a "classical interaction."
Do you have any reason for your statement that some non-classical process is envolved? I would like to hear it. Again, it is the quality of the posts that counts, not their number - often that just indicates little thought content.
There needs to be a quantum mechanical process. How do you answer for a photon in a superpositioning of eigenstates collapse to reveal one single eigenstate upon arrival at the retina? Or how about the fact that the photon has to follow quantum rules upon absorption, such as the exchange of information and energy through angular momentum in a time of 0<t<r/c? Aren't these quantum processes?
Please Billy, its obvious this professional hasn't put a single thought into my post, concerning that original photon. A professional in his field, he may very well be. If he is, i am dissappointed he cannot see the implications, and somewhat astounded as well.
I will answer to your other post soon.
For instance, the angular momentum is related to the spin of the particle, and wiki says:
''In physics and chemistry, spin has a special meaning, representing a non-classical kind of angular momentum intrinsic to a body, as opposed to orbital angular momentum, which is the motion of its center of mass about an external point.''
So how can the photon exchange any energy OR information, in a non-classical model?
Billy T
06-04-08, 07:40 AM
There needs to be a quantum mechanical process. How do you answer for a photon in a superpositioning of eigenstates collapse to reveal one single eigenstate upon arrival at the retina? Or how about the fact that the photon has to follow quantum rules upon absorption, such as the exchange of information and energy through angular momentum in a time of 0<t<r/c? Aren't these quantum processes?
Please Billy, its obvious this professional hasn't put a single thought into my post, concerning that original photon. A professional in his field, he may very well be. If he is, i am dissappointed he cannot see the implications, and somewhat astounded as well....CharonZ's comment on this thread were better than yours. For example there is little thought in this post as it is entirely a circular argument. It assumes the quantum nature of the photon, states that it enteract with the retina and conclude therefore the interaction must be of a quantum nature. Without any knowledge of the existance of quantum mechanic, there is no problem in treating the absorbtion of light in paint, in leaves, or in the retina entirely classically. The post of CharonZ was not as blunt as this, but this thread is basically circular nonsense.
PS Newton believed in the particle nature of light all his life, even derived Snell's law of refraction (slightly wrong as he had sins instead tan functions, but for small angles his experiments could not tell the difference.) He knew the retina absorbed light, that the image on it was "upside down," that the retina converted the light into signals sent on the optic nerve*, etc and had no need of quantum mechanics, which is good as it was not known for more than 250 years later. He wrote a whole treatis, called Optics**, which you could learn from, without any need to know that light is quantized or about quantum mechaincs. You start knowing that, wave some hard to understand words around and then conclude quantum mechanis must be an essentail part, "logically" of the light retinal interaction. This is false, circular logic. Netwon did not know some things you do (QM characteristics of light) but would never have advanced a circular argument.
------------
*Back then, these signals were thought to be pressure pulses in little tubes we now call "nerves."
**Been long time since I read it, but think it is there where he spend considerable time on how gravity, which is not particles in his POV, gets from the sun to Earth. His main reason, as I recall, for rejecting the alternative wave theory of light was that light did get to Earth from the sun and there was no medium for the waves to travel in. He knew that for "fact," as if there were, friction with it would have spiraled the Earth into the sun long ago. He could think deeply and clearly - why I am sure he too would recognize the circular nature of this thread's main idea.
Is no one listening? How can the photon be classical, when the exchange of information requires a non-classical theory?
Such as spin and angular momentum. Instrinsic properties that are not classical.
Billy T
06-04-08, 10:18 AM
Is no one listening? How can the photon be classical, when the exchange of information requires a non-classical theory?That too is nonsense. Read Shannon's classic book on information (where the Bit is first defined, the relationship to entropy etc. is all clearly layed out, with NO REFERENCE TO QUANTUM THEORY.)
The only one "not listening" and learning, appears to by you. Just because it is true that light is quantized, and best understood IN ALL IT ASPECTS with quantum mechanics, especially line radiation and absorbtion such as why line widths are inverse to the transition probablies of the associated change in levels of the radiating atom etc., does NOT mean that the quantum mechanical nature of light is needed to model or understand ALL of the interactions of light with mater. Especially if one takes a particle POV of light, as Newton did, QM is often not needed . In fact some interactions, like the photo-electric effect, are easier to understand if one is ignorant of the QM nature of light and assumes light is little massless particles! Absorption in the retina is such case also. Better to think of light as little massless balls of energy for that.
That too is nonsense. Read Shannon's classic book on information (where the Bit is first defined, the relationship to entropy etc. is all clearly layed out, with NO REFERENCE TO QUANTUM THEORY.)
The only one "not listening" and learning, appears to by you. Just because it is true that light is quantized, and best understood IN ALL IT ASPECTS with quantum mechanics, especially line radiation and absorbtion such as why line widths are inverse to the transition probablies of the associated change in levels of the radiating atom etc., does NOT mean that the quantum mechanical nature of light is needed to model or understand ALL of the interactions of light with mater. Especially if one takes a particle POV of light, as Newton did, QM is often not needed . In fact some interactions, like the photo-electric effect, are easier to understand if one is ignorant of the QM nature of light and assumes light is little massless particles! Absorption in the retina is such case also. Better to think of light as little massless balls of energy for that.
Yes, exactly. No physics reference.
Being a physicist, you're not really one to accept that all of reality needs to be understood from a quantum viewpoint. By doing so, we will also need to establish the firm grounds of the possible notions of unified theories, and then reflect on them which does not use non-classical physics.
THIS is a nightmare.
The complexityof the brain billy, you said, i was actually unaware of the very few functions that give rise to this complexity.
I propose you haven't given this much of a wide, and diverse interpretation the attention of differential models in the field, in example, quantum mechanics of course.
First of all, there is no proof that consciousness arises from matter, despite the obvious evidence of materialistic statistical averages, moving about my brain and body. In fact, it alone would be a statistical nightmare to catalogue these particles into some kind of model, because there are far too many to deal with.
But these may be complicated by defect as a ''complexity of numbers'', there is still on the whole, very simple processes happening. And somehow, these simple processes give rise to a more complex machine: The nuerological networks of the human perception or consciousness.
You give up reason, to investigate some of the possible theories backing up other possible connections to the conscious level, so there maybe, in fact, there very possible IS more processes involved, rather than the ones you singularily had in mind.
I'll continue this later, showing some other possible connections to the spark of consciousness, rather than alone a series of materialistic functions and operators.
Billy T
06-04-08, 06:55 PM
... First of all, there is no proof that consciousness arises from matter... there is still on the whole, very simple processes happening. ...You give up reason, to investigate some of the possible theories backing up other possible connections to the conscious level, so there maybe, in fact, there very possible IS more processes involved, rather than the ones you singularily had in mind. ...I can agree with most of your post. Certainly there is no proof that mind or consciousness is only a product of mater. Likewise there is no proof it a simple process (bold above). I do not know of any adequate definition (or even a good test for) consciousness, so of course I have no proofs as to how it (or mind, if that differs) is produced.
I chose, however not to make a difficult problem even more so by dragging in more ill defined concept like "karma" "spirit" or even “quantum mechanics” which is well understood, but usually only of any significance in very small systems. The functioning of the brain is (with the possible exception of the micro-tubular hairs found in most life forms, including amoebas* etc. also) much to gross for QM to play any role. Quite a lot is understood about the detail mechanisms of a neural discharge (the propagating wave of depolarization along the axon as Na+ ions rush in and change the "resting potential" of the interior from approximately -70mV to brief small positive over shoot. I think the biochemical "sodium pump" which restores the -70mv in some cases as short a time as 0.8ms, but usually a few ms is well understood now too. The uptake, blocking, diffusion of site specific neuro-transmitters also all is governed by classical physic.
In short there is no reason to believe that QM is in any way involved in any neural activity, but it is essentially impossible to prove any negative statement. You may say that the sun will not rise tomorrow - and I cannot PROOVE you wrong. I can even imagine reasons how that could happen, more easily than I can imagine how QM makes any part of consciousness or the mind. I think the brain does that because I can show by drugs or cooling parts of it your loss of aspects of consciousness Small parietal strokes often do make you even loss awareness of half the world contra-lateral to the stroke etc. with no other observable effect in the retained space, etc.
I.e. if you knew a little more about how the brains works, you would understand it is great step backwards to speak in such vague terms as you do.
------------
*Do you think amoebas are “conscious”? – I ask not to ridicule, but to expose the difficulty of defining consciousness. There are multi- year long human coma cases with no responses that have recovered with recall of some events that occurred during the coma and would thus seem to require some form of consciousness during the coma. Yet the lowly amoeba is able to demonstrate many different responses and some limited ability to learn. Before you make assertions about anything, you need to be able to define it – what you are speaking of. Can you do this for consciousness so the amoeba fails and the comatose man with recall passes? Until you can, I will continue to think this thread’s central idea is basically nonsense. Even if you can, I think I will keep my POV as I do know a little about brain processes.
That's the good thing though. I know quite a bit about the brain, but maybe not enough in your standard. The terms i give might be vague, but they are essentially true... for instance, suppose we do not consider information here in the ethereal sense, but deal with the actual thermodynamics of the photon absorption. It turns out again, that this is only possible through an angular momentum, which is a non-classical function.
So information may even be irrelevent to the point, it was a demonstration really. But we also need to be carefull, because even that energy has information, a form of information anyway. For me, the logic can be no more complete, other than to say that is was somehow proof.
I still hold to this, because of the proof above. The photon, that original wave that collapsed upon the retina, added, and contributed to a generation of processes which end up being nuerological. They are tied functionally through this.
But your POV may not necesserily be wrong at all. I am not a total unmaterialist. I believe the material is still required as a conduit for consciousness, and the finer information located within brain activity, such as thoughts. We know if the brain tissue is damaged, then there can be a nueral problem, with remembering thoughts.
But there must be a ''back-reaction'' theory, that is predicted by David Bohm, originally i believe.
The idea, is that the mind and the matter it somehow ''surrounds'' in a ghostly field, both react upon each other, so that mind is certainly materialistic to some extent, whilst there is also something quite beyond matter itself, when concerning the mind.
Billy T
06-04-08, 09:46 PM
...The terms i give might be vague, but they are essentially true... "Oksa met orboo" There is a concept expressed in vague terms also. I.e. I asked you to at least define what you are talking about. Vague terms are not "true." They are not "false" either. They are vague and as meaningless as: "Oksa met orboo."
...for instance, suppose we do not consider information here in the ethereal sense, but deal with the actual thermodynamics of the photon absorption. It turns out again, that this is only possible through an angular momentum, which is a non-classical function. Yes the angular momentum of a atom or molecule emitting or absorbing a packet of optical energy (light IR , UV or X-ray microwave such as the 21 cm line form space) does have a change in its angular momentum, so the packet has angular momentum. It could be completely classical physics (but current theory strong suggests it is not). I.e. logically it could be what Newton thought it was - a small ball of energy that could carry both energy and angular momentum.
You start with the knowledge that quantum mechanics, QM, does well describe all the known interactions of this packet with matter (None are known with the "ghostly field" you mention later that causes mind or with unicorn's horns.). Then you falsely conclude that some aspect of QM is required for the interaction to be understood. Not true, or a logical consequence. All that follows is that in addition to carrying energy, the packet carries angular momentum (and as bricks do not get heavier by absorbing these packets for years in sunlight, these packets must not carry mass.)
I.e. There is no "Proof that a Quantum Model of the Brain is required" as you titled this foolish thread as I have just give you a counter example, these little classical packets, that destroys your claim. Only one counter example destroys any claim even if a million supporting case are known. Again your reasoning is circular. You start with QM assumed, observe absorption, conclude with QM being needed. Just if I start by assuming classical energy angular momentum mass-less balls too tiny to be seen, observe absorption, and conclude with these tiny balls being needed is circular logic and certainly nonsense also.
...I still hold to this, because of the proof above. That circular proof?
...The photon, that original wave that collapsed upon the retina, added, and contributed to a generation of processes which end up being nuerological. They are tied functionally through this.Yes, that is true, in all probability, but not a proof that classical physics is not adequate POV also. THIS WAS YOUR ASSUMED STARTING POINT, NOT SOMETHING PROVEN. I of course also believe that QM is the best description of these little packets, but some day a different theory may replace it and certainly QM is not required to adequately understand most interactions with these energy packets called photons and gross pieces of matter, like the retina, (pieces big enough to be seen with the un-aided eye). Even very strange reactions like the dual index of refraction of "Island spar" crystals are better understood without QM, using Maxwell's equations, crystal structures etc. Both F= ma and classical optics are adequate for most, if not all, common observations with any dense matter weighting a micro gram or more.
...I believe the material is still required as a [b]conduit for consciousness, and the finer information located within brain activity, such as thoughts. We know if the brain tissue is damaged, then there can be a nueral problem, with remembering thoughts.Well I guess that is a little part of your definition of "consciousness" - i.e. it is something that can flow thru conduits. Is that thru any sort of conduit, such a a copper pipe or are there special requirements on the "conduit"? Perhaps you think of it like Newton after all. He thought the conduits were special - only the little tube of the nervous system we now call nerves contained the low viscosity fluid in such fine amounts that the tiny little balls striking these conduits could make a pressure pulse travel up to the brain. (Those balls do not carry much momentum individually.) Newton also believed, I am sure , that if you damage these conduits, then mental function would be impaired.
...But there must be a ''back-reaction'' theory, that is predicted by David Bohm, originally i believe. The idea, is that the mind and the matter it somehow ''surrounds'' in a ghostly field, both react upon each other, so that mind is certainly materialistic to some extent, whilst there is also something quite beyond matter itself, when concerning the mind.I don't think Bohm said anything even vaguely resembling that, but I have only read one of his books. Sir John Ingles, who knew much more neuro-science than me, did say some things sort of like that in his book, which I also read. As far as I know, he was the last "dualist" who knew a significant amount of neuro-secience. I missed him so much that I called the smartest monkey in the lab, "Sir John" and still have his skull* (The monkey's, not the English lord's)
-------------
*Saved it as it has the two tiny holes were the wires went in and the section that was removed during the electrode implant operation heald so well it is had to see. I though that if I ever needed a cane, that Sir John's skull would make a good top for it. It is just the right size to fit in your hand with smooth surface and provides good grip.
Billy,
I said...
...The photon, that original wave that collapsed upon the retina, added, and contributed to a generation of processes which end up being nuerological. They are tied functionally through this.
then you said
''Yes hat is true, in all probability, but not a proof that classical physics is not adequate POV also. THIS WAS YOUR ASSUMED STARTING POINT''
......
But it is. I have given proof that the energy absorption requires a non-classical theory, such as angular momentum.
You can't ignore evidence that cannot be refuted.
Billy T
06-04-08, 10:22 PM
....I have given proof that the energy absorption requires a non-classical theory, such as angular momentum.
You can't ignore evidence that cannot be refuted.I am not ignoring it. Far from that. I am pointing out that your "proof" is circular in it logic AND further more, there is a counter example to what you claim to be proving, so it is impossible to prove as one counter example proves it false. Namely classic physic can explain absorption. Angular moment in small mass-less packets is no more inconsistent with classical physics than energy in small mass-less packets is inconsistent with classical physics. You seem to be stating that only QM can have and use the concept of angular momentum. - That is false. Newton invented and thus defined "classical physics" and had these little mass-less balls as part of his classical physics. (As I have already told you he died still deigned the wave property of light. Light was little particles, too small to be seen or injury when passing thru the eye. - It was very much like the ancient Greek idea except they had these invisible particles shooting out of the eyes and "feeling" the effect of sun light on things to give you your visual perceptions.
I agree that it is very likely that QM< is the best known description of these small packets, but that current fact is not a "proof" that classic physics cannot provide an adequate explanation of most if not all interactions of the packets with micro-gram or larger pieces of dense matter. In fact it does. as well as QM does so there is no NEED for QM, just as there is no NEED for QM in almost all other types of interactions between all forms of energy and all pieces of micro-gram or larger mater. Most people have never heard of QM and yet understand these interactions by some model, often one you and I think false.
Your are confusing "Proof" "Is required" etc. with what is likely true about the interaction of a photon with a molecule in the retina. I.e. In principle, it can be described with QM, but no one would be able actually to do that. Classical physics contains energy and angular momentum concepts also. Your so called "proof" is circular logic. I think that while QM is a more complete description in principle, QM is totally useless in all brain processes, including the retina, which is brain tissue that migrated forward to its location in back of eyes prior to birth.
What I find circular, is your arguement that classical figures can already determine a theory of the mind, but that would simply be wrong since there is the evidence of quantum mechanical actions that are certainly not classical, as instructed by wiki in the case of angular momentum and the exchange of energy and information also through angular momentum.
The momenta, is itself, an erreneous theory in classical physics, because it doesn't take onto account instrinsic effects of modern physics, i believe, and leads to the conclusion that, [[even though the process between the photon and the retina are purely not located nuerologically, the information does travel and get superpositined into the phenomena of the three dimensions we percieve... the effect is nonetheless an operation of the neural networks, while the neural networks, are the operations of consciousness, for remember, i am not totally ethereal on the mind-body problem]].
There is proof, and then there is proof that is inexorably required. Without the detail, we would have a theory of the mind, no matter whether adiquate to answer for consciousness, would still be, incomplete, ignoring evidently the non-classical actions most obvious.
(1) - In fact i speculate a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state, where it can only be described as superpositining occuring in the brain activity.
It would be like breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result.
Billy T
06-05-08, 05:03 PM
I will finally abandon efforts in this thread. Your last three posts are such a "soup" of vague unsupported statements that it is impossible to see any factual content in them to comment on.
I know, and i made that totally clear.
You trying to make me scape goat?? You are the one who continues to rally that no one reads your posts, and yet i took my way out to read your ans consider it deeply, talking two days to answer. I look up to people with your kind of representation, then let me ask you one more thing, you horrible old man who has lost all integrety to the realm he first studied:
Did you noe write a book so that you hope the world children from declining in the area of research....???
And yet you are here, trying to grind my idea's down in a pistol and bowl, and that my inverted logical counterpart who has now vacated on a few thoughts of mere speculation, you are by definition hypocritical.
And, talking about vacating on a few unsupported claims, only vased with logic, you haven't provided any evidence at all, either, and with unsupported claims of speculations. Hyposcritical again.
If you hadn't given up, i certainly would have had myself.
Good call.
Billy T
06-06-08, 12:17 AM
I am sure you think you are stating something, but in the other thread you started on the same subject when I last looked, the were 11 replies ALL BY YOU to your post one. Not one person has the slightest idea what you are so vaguely expressing. I asked you for a definiton in this thread, but never got it.
The first thing one must do if one wants to contribute to science is learn to express yourself so others can understand if they try. I did try for several posts but as stated in my last have given up as I have no idea what you are trying to state, here or in the 11 posts you and you alone have made in the other thread you started on this ill defined idea of yours. Why not try to give a few definitons of the terms you are throwing about.
For example, from your post 46:
"a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state, where it can only be described as superpositining occuring in the brain activity." Only thing I am sure of here is that isotopes have nothing to do with this subject. WHAT "third state" what were the first two? etc.
Or from your next post, 47:
"breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result." Does that mean anything? or is it just a word soup? Are you really trying to explain consciousness in this one sentence? What is the "neural point"? Where is it found?
You do not believe me, but I am trying to help you see your problem. No one else is even doing that. The only other posts here have basicly been to state that your crazy, or making false claims etc. No one is even doing that in the other thread.
''I am sure you think you are stating something, but in the other thread you started on the same subject when I last looked, the were 11 replies ALL BY YOU to your post one. Not one person has the slightest idea what you are so vaguely expressing. I asked you for a definiton in this thread, but never got it.''
Well, i was wondering that why myself, so i will ask anyone to ask a few questions to anything i can help the understand.
''For example, from your post 46:
"a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state, where it can only be described as superpositining occuring in the brain activity." Only thing I am sure of here is that isotopes have nothing to do with this subject. WHAT "third state" what were the first two? etc.''
Well, i did explain, so its obvious you never read it properly, as i had suspected.
''Or from your next post, 47:
"breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result." Does that mean anything? or is it just a word soup? Are you really trying to explain consciousness in this one sentence? What is the "neural point"? Where is it found?''
Help me see problems, as much as i am contending yours. You are not necesrily right, and i shown evidence to suggest so. Also, Pernose was the first one who psotulated that maybe superpositioning plays a fundamental part in consciousness, and i am merely speculating it may have an implication on that two-dimensional information being spuerpositioned into the value we observe.
Now give me a break. I did say i was speculating. I was not INFORMING SOME definate truth. You have already made an opinion on my, before you read this, for that it why you are intnetionally trying to ignore what i am informating you.
I don't like appealing to authority, but Fred Wolf Agreed with my evidence. And i consider it a a truth.
Oh, and i try to talk soup to you, in simplistic terms, because you often get some simple basic rules you learn in 1st years college.
Billy T
06-06-08, 07:04 AM
Oh, and i try to talk soup to you, in simplistic terms, because you often get some simple basic rules you learn in 1st years college.Before you give more word soup that has no meaning for me or all the others who have responded here, Please try to give some definitons. I will even help you get started:
It is hard, if not impossible, to define consciousness, but perhaps as a stater you could tell to what extent, if any, the way you use that term differs from "awareness" and specifically tell what your objective here is. I.e. are you trying to explain either what consciousness is or how it functions?
Half the others who have posted here have noted that, to quote one, your posts are "barely readable." the other half have said it is nonsense of "bull cookies" I have been remarkable kind and patient. Go back and see if you can find even one poster (other than me) you has been able to undestand and agree with even one thing you have posted. - You will not be able to. You do not seem to understand the most fundamental aspects of meaningful communications with others.
Jesus speculated wisdom that was considered crack-pot...
You barley recognize my meanings, OR QUANTUM PROOF BILLY,so either the years have had a wisdomful perspectia on your life, or eithe age has descrepenced and limited the youth of idea's.
For this is feel sorry, because you still haven't answered why you are streating a phsyics student as an operation different to the reason you write your book... Contradictory @FUCKING BEST.
... old you may be, but lots you still have to learn
In other words, you are personally analogous to the twats the keep close ctanct here, ecause you can't emphaisze the conceptuability of self-reference on think outside box.
As a physicist, i am disappointed by the genera illogic speculations, which could arguably not even be such a thing.
Vkothii
06-06-08, 08:16 PM
Eh?
AlphaNumeric
06-07-08, 12:49 PM
How can this be disputable?By the fact you don't know any quantum mechanics, any classical dynamics, any relativity, you use none of those in your openning post, you don't know anything about neurology or biochemistry and your seemingly single source for anything in the world of science is Dr Wolf, a known crackpot.
So you're making claims about a subject you know nothing about based on the ramblings of a crank.
How's that for 'disputable'?
Billy T
06-07-08, 07:02 PM
Until you posted this:In other words, you are personally analogous to the twats the keep close ctanct here, ecause you can't emphaisze the conceptuability of self-reference on think outside box. As a physicist, i am disappointed by the genera illogic speculations, which could arguably not even be such a thing.
And from your post 46:
"a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state,..."
Or your next post, 47:
"breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result."I was coming to the conclusion you were a sock puppet for MetaKron I.e. Are the same poster as MetaKon as neither of you ever thank for the badly needed educational efforts I provide.
Both of you when can think of nothing less, switch to personal attack mode:
For example of his, see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1881987&postcount=99
but MetaKron never wires the un-intelligible gibberish you post (illustrated above) that several here have complained is "barely readable" etc.
so I dropped the idea that you are MetaKron in disguise.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.