Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by globali, Jan 29, 2018.
Obtuse is exactly the right word.
Though what you meant was not obtuse but abstruse.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
A reasonable request. I recommend a quick view @ 7:00, @ 56:00 and @ 1:00:00 Penrose mentions "mathematical understanding", "proto-consciousness", and "consciousness" specifically in reference to quantum mechanics.
If I misunderstand his posits in any way, I would appreciate clarification.
Well, let's put it this way, you seem to have real trouble in understanding what it is I am trying to say, or perhaps you are not making the effort at all.
It is the second.
Look, I am always willing to discuss science with you or anyone, but I am thoroughly sick and tired of your obsessive pushing of this Shapiro/Tegmark mathematical universe and now this Penrose nutty microtubules nonsense. The guy is nearly ninety.
As I have said on other threads, you are hijacking all manner of subjects and boring the arse off us all with this stuff. For God's sake find something else to talk about.
Up and down are not color charges, so I don't know why you'd bring those up. Remember, don't go killing people in the streets!
(Also, calling them "states" is iffy at best.)
But I'm glad you agree with me that you pointing to color charge as support for color existing on a subatomic level was completely wrong.
(And I'm not surprised you once again ignore your own "three fundamental frequencies" idea.)
That is not what you're doing.
You are corrupting Penrose's meaning to your own ends.
Penrose's statement - to paraphrase - is "all A starts with B" (A is sentience, B is quantum scale).
IT does NOT, in any way, follow that "If B exists, then A logically follows".
You are either inadvertently - or deliberately - starting with a quote from a famous person that in no way supports your agenda, and mangling it to further your own off-topic ideas.
As I said before, it's similar to a bot that picks up on keywords, but doesn't understand their meaning or context; it merely tries to keep a conversation going.
SciFo: "...in short, the vacuum of power in Upper Volta is serious."
W4U: "Vacuum? Did you know that Brian Greene says that the vacuum is full of quantum tunnels? It logically follows that we could use those tunnels to travel around the universe."
SciFo: "OK, for starters, Greene's hypothesis does not imply that at all. For two, do you understand the different meanings of 'vacuum'?"
W4U: "Greene is a famous scientist. Also, Green is my favorite colour. Here is a link to an article about the origins of green."
Brilliant! Made me roar with laughter. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Except this is a fictitious story. Can't you even cite something I actually wrote??
I expect more from SciFo.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.
I thought that misunderstanding was also cleared up.
Can we get back to the OP?
We? You are speaking for who?
I find your unwarranted critiques boring. Why don't you find something else to talk about?
If I seem to hijack the thread, that means there are responses to my posts, no?
Many responses make for lively conversation about and around the subject. That's a good thing.
If my posts are irrelevant, why do people comment at all? If I see something I have no interest in, I don't waste my time responding. And I don't make disparaging comments about poster's intellectual deficits.
"Ain't nuttin' wrong with my intellect......" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ability to view something from different perspectives makes for "understanding" (Roger Antonsen)
I addressed the Penrose reference directly (posts 105, 106).
You said "'sentience begins at quantum scale' which would make the universe at least semi sentient, or pseudo intelligent."
The latter does not logically follow from the former.
You didn't get it. I simplified it for you.
Can you explain your reluctance to agree with that very simple observation?
What information processing does the universe have trouble with? Entanglement? Pi? Phi?
Is the science of physics not the observation and recording of the inherent values and functions of physical objects? There seems to be a lot of information out there. What does the physical universe do with all that physical information sharing? Evolve?
The Earth alone has witnessed (performed) some "2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion" simple chemical reactions (information sharing) during its lifetime.
Note: the earth itself is not alive but it is host to a thriving dynamic and dynamical ecological system.
The universe does not process information.
You are continuing to misuse words.
This is not going to end well.
Then please do tell what the correct wording is in context of describing information sharing among universal values and functions.
Everything in the universe processes information? Better? But what does that mean?
Just saying no, no, no, does not get us anywhere at all, no?
If you do know how this should be expressed in a clear and coherent manner, please show me!
I'd be really grateful.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Glad I could help!
Was it though?
By all means! I only replied to correct an obviously wrong statement made in the science-section, nothing more.
No, you did not quote me at all verbatim or otherwise. You invented a wholly fictitious story and assigned it to me and some anonymous SciFo participant.
This is not honest debating, Dave. Not a word of that "quote" was factual! And there is absolutely no need to invent a "metaphor" when you have my posts at hand.
Yes it does, and I'll make my case.
Quantum Mechanics is the fundamental (essential) information sharing mechanism of the universal medium, it makes the universe a coherent unified whole. And makes entanglement at great distances possible.
If quantum mechanics is a two-way exchange of information sharing and this involves a transfer of quanta (a compound packet of energy) a form of language, understood by both parties then one can make a case for a form of pseudo- or proto-sentience. That is how I interpreted Penrose. And if this is true, a case for non-intelligent or pseudo-intelligent mathematical sentience can be made IMO.
Actually I learned that the quantum wave collapse takes time. Kind of briefly ringing a doorbell at speed of light. As I understand it, quantum is a threshold event at nano scale, a dynamic "ding" triggering a "dong" response in the receiver...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Each "ding" in the "rrringgg" being a part of the sequentially collapsing oscillating wave packet. That's what I saw in Penrose's presentation. An abstract universal functional mathematical pattern.
And as the saying goes, "once a thing has begun it is that way". The rest is just evolutionary stages of refinement and adaptation for functionality in specific areas of sensory acuteness.
No you didn't. You slandered me...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because almost everything you say is wrong, and because you are hijacking all the time.
If you go through the replies to your posts on this thread, I think you will find virtually all of them are either commenting on mistakes or misunderstandings of yours, or objecting to your practice of hijacking threads.
In fact, why don't you list for me the post numbers of the replies to you on this thread which are not doing either of these things? That could be an eye-opening exercise.
I would put it that the Universe DOES NOT PROCESS ANY INFORMATION
Processing, to me implies,
giving said information consideration
deciding on a course of action
implementation of that action
Since the laws of physics are fixed THERE ARE NO CHOICES
Apart from the Universe being non sentient hence has no ability to make choices
Us mere human Minions have a problem with entanglement, because us dumb Minions don't understand it
Universe does not even know entanglement exist
That's because us dumb Minions found some process we didn't understand and gave it the name entanglement
Incidentally the Universe does not know about us dumb Minions existing
(3rd edit) Uncertainty Principal?
We again dumb Minions are the ones uncertain
And dumb Universe again does not know anything about uncertainty (or certainty)
All things considered the dumb Universe runs fairly smoothly with fixed physics
And dumb Minions do pretty well figuring out what they don't know
I need coffee and stop doing 4 things at once
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OTOH I can also count the likes I get and be reasonably certain that I am contributing something agreeable to the general conversation.
The critiques I get from a few are not about substance but form of presentation, I can understand that but that only requires clarification, not endless complaints about semantics.
OK well here are the stats for responses to your posts on this thread:
+ve responses: 2
neutral responses: 2
-ve responses: 32
I rest my case.
Separate names with a comma.