RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,12:48   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,12:39)
Hi JAM,
You asked...
 
Quote

Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?

I may be wrong about this.  But this was included in the acknowledgement...
Quote
Citations to "This Volume"refer to Toward a Science of Consciousness, (1996) S Hameroff, A Kaszniak, A Scott (eds), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Also published in Mathematics and Computer Simulation 40:453-480, 1996

So what? Neither of those suggest that the paper was peer-reviewed.
Quote
And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland.

Oh, come on! That's not what "peer-reviewed" means, and you know it. "Peer-reviewed" means that it is reviewed by peers BEFORE publication, not after.
Quote
But like I said, I may be wrong.

You probably are. My question is, why would you make such a claim without evidence?
Quote
Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for.

That's just pathetic, TP. The point is that contributions to the secondary literature are rarely peer-reviewed, while those to the primary literature almost always are. I know that none of the reviews I have published were peer-reviewed.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,13:01   

Hi JAM,

You wrote...
Quote
Severely. I've been banned three times, but TP keeps persisting in his fantasy that the folks at TT are tolerant.

Primarily, I've been banned for pointing out obvious ways to test their hypotheses. Most recently, I was banned for arguing with Sal about malaria.


I remember something about you being banned because you tried to use an alias after being banned previously.

Can you provide a link to the first time you were banned?

I have seen some biased use of sending comments to the memory hole (some of mine have ended up there).

I have only known of one person being banned, that was you.  Zachriel (an ID critic) pressed MikeGene pretty hard about why.  The answer was in reference to your subterfuge.

I have seen some pretty vocal critics on Telic Thoughts that didn't get banned.  Nick Matzke makes regular appearances there.  I have dared MikeGene to simply ask me to leave when the going has gotten tough between us.  He has not done so.

I am of the opinion that I would not stay where I am not welcome.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,13:55   

Hi JAM,

Thank you for the opportunity for me to expand my understanding of Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR.

You wrote...
 
Quote
What Penrose omits is the fact that the evidence supporting the involvement of the ACTIN cytoskeleton is an order of magnitude greater than the evidence supporting the involvement of the MICROTUBULE cytoskeleton.


Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.

I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.


To the quote "In cat visual cortex, MAP-2 is dephosphorylated when visual stimulation occurs (Aoki and Siekevitz, 1985)."

You responded with...
 
Quote
Is that a cause or an effect, TP? Is this provoking any thought in your head?


The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.

Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.

If you are not familiar with Libet, his experiments show a half a second time period of electrical brain activity prior to a conscious decision being made.

Libet's experiments have caused a stir in the study of consciousness.  Playing professional tennis and hitting a fastball should be a physical impossibility.  One answer is that we are helpless observers watching our bodies perform while deluding ourselves with false memories.

Another is that consciousness is a result of orchestrated quantum effects interconnected in both space and time.

Dealing with time as just another dimension is a given in the study of General Relativity.

The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  
Quote
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
(emphasis mine)
Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the EPR Paradox

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,14:23   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,13:55)
Hi JAM,

Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.

Explanations aren't enough. Let's do real science, shall we?
 
Quote
I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.

You won't get one from me, because it would still be silly, just less silly than hypothesizing that MTs are the source.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm trying to explain to you that attributing the emergent property of consciousness to something as distinct as MTs is laughable.

Since the motile response of a single fibroblast to extracellular cues is an emergent property in which the roles of the actin and MT cytoskeletons are hopelessly intertwined, what reasonable person would assume that consciousness woud be so much simpler?

 
Quote
The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.

But dephosphorylation is not quantum mechanics, so you have no point. My point is that Penrose is pointing to things happening in the realm of MTs, while ignoring the much larger number of events that don't involve them. That's why the paper is a crock. You're trying to pretend that they are thinking on a less reductionist plane than I am, when the reality is that they are far more reductionist!
 
Quote
Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.

But none of that is relevant to an observation of dephosphorylation of a MAP.
 
Quote
Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

Reducing all these things to MTs is just laughable.
 
Quote
As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...      
Quote
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."

The experiment has nothing at all to do with microtubules, TP. Therefore it doesn't even come close to testing a microtubule hypothesis.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,14:35   

Quote
The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  
Quote
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
(emphasis mine)
Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the EPR Paradox

So the result of the experiment was to couple two macroscopic neural cultures, and then see how strongly coupled the state was? How did they deal with decoherence? Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,15:31   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2007,11:31)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,12:26)
   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,10:20)
MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.

False.
Quote
If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.

False again.
Quote
from the peer reviewed paper  Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness

Tell me, TP, what is the factual basis for your confident assertion that this paper was peer-reviewed?

JAM, have you been censored at TT? If so, under what conditions?

I attempted to find out the reasons why as I had never seen any behavior deserving expulsion. So I tried the direct approach in a Rabbit Thread.

Quote
Zachriel: So what happened to JAM?

MikeGene: The contributors voted to ban ‘JAM’ for misbehavior with multiple members well over a year ago. Since then, the person has re-entered TT with new screen names, where ‘JAM’ was simply the fifth.

Zachriel: You have every right to control your own forum. However, I have never seen any post by JAM that could be construed as "misbehavior". Knowing that he was the same commenter, you nevertheless allowed him to post for quite some time under the nick "JAM", so what prompted the current banning? What other names did he post under?

Bradford: The individual we're discussing has resurrected himself under different identities. The initial misbehavoir took place quite some time ago under a different moniker. I am not going into identity details but to answer your question about "allowing," it was not immediately clear what was occuring.

Zachriel: That's understandable. Perhaps someone else can explain (on this open thread) why JAM has been accused of "misbehavior".

Bradford: Just to be clear. The reason "JAM" was banned centers on deception, namely, making an end run around a process through an identity change. There are other reasons why the individual was initially banned.

Zachriel: What reasons? Under what name? As I said, I have seen nothing that can be construed as "misbehavior" by JAM. But I haven't read all of his posts, either. The accusation has been made, and I would like to know the basis of that accusation. As JAM apparently has some knowledge of genetics, I would think his contribution to these discussions would be informative.

MikeGene: The misbehavior occurred under the first screen name (and frankly, I don’t recall the details as these things are not important in my life). But this is all irrelevant now and won’t be pursued.

Zachriel: That's your choice. I just thought I would ask.

I never did find out why.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,15:34   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,15:31)
I never did find out why.

For pointing to data and offering ways to test hypotheses.

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:09   

Telic Thoughts is as averse to facts and exposés that reveal their inconsistencies as any other creationist or ID forum.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8896
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:15   

I'd say it's slightly better than other ID sites. I've put up maybe 10 comments and they've all gone through. Uncommon Descent would have banned me for that, and at FtK's site she would have deleted them all.

   
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:17   

Now, I ask you... Why in the world would I be disposed to take a new commenter to our blog at face value with this public sideshow going on? [Oy!] ...and you call US "idiots."

JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception. As soon as we had confirmation that a new pseud was him, he was locked back out. What his discussion as the new pseud was to that point on any thread is completely irrelevant - we do not allow banned pseuds to come back as different pseuds.

If/when a commenter's behavior becomes frequently disruptive, off-topic or obsessive to the point of creepy, they're outta there. Among the few who have been banned from TT are both critics and ID supporters. You yourselves apparently banned someone [pseud: "Supersport"] just yesterday for being a troublemaker. If "Supersport" signs in with three or four new pseuds (and you catch him via his computer address info) in the next couple of months, would you count those in your total of "people" banned, or count him and all his pseuds as a single ban?

Point being that one person's personality clash with a commenter isn't enough to get someone banned at TT, and one person's forgiveness doesn't get a banned commenter back into the fold once he's gone. This is completely reasonable. Whether it seems reasonable or not to posters here seeking new and better 'creationists' to play with is not a consideration.

Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:30   

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Now, I ask you... Why in the world would I be disposed to take a new commenter to our blog at face value with this public sideshow going on? [Oy!] ...and you call US "idiots."

JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception. As soon as we had confirmation that a new pseud was him, he was locked back out. What his discussion as the new pseud was to that point on any thread is completely irrelevant - we do not allow banned pseuds to come back as different pseuds.

If/when a commenter's behavior becomes frequently disruptive, off-topic or obsessive to the point of creepy, they're outta there. Among the few who have been banned from TT are both critics and ID supporters. You yourselves apparently banned someone [pseud: "Supersport"] just yesterday for being a troublemaker. If "Supersport" signs in with three or four new pseuds (and you catch him via his computer address info) in the next couple of months, would you count those in your total of "people" banned, or count him and all his pseuds as a single ban?

Point being that one person's personality clash with a commenter isn't enough to get someone banned at TT, and one person's forgiveness doesn't get a banned commenter back into the fold once he's gone. This is completely reasonable. Whether it seems reasonable or not to posters here seeking new and better 'creationists' to play with is not a consideration.

Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.

"Bad behavior" is pretty generic. "Personality clash" is also pretty vague.

Do you have any actual examples of "bad behavior" on the part of JAM?

As for the difficulties in recruiting "new and better "creationists" here, it is admittedly very difficult. But maybe that is because creationists these days are neither new nor better...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,17:45   

Alan Fox wrote:    
Quote
I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.

Nobody's all bad.  I've even found myself in agreement with DaveScot on occasion.

*shudders*

Thought Provoker wrote:    
Quote
Joy is quite capable to defending herself.  MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.  If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.

I did challenge Joy, directly.  We had a long exchange, during which she (like you) was unable to come up with any evidence for superconductivity in living organisms, much less humans.  Eventually she banished a comment of mine to the Memory Hole for merely quoting her.

TP:  
Quote
Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life.

It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity.

Where did you get that idea?  The Berkeley research you cite doesn't involve superconductivity at all.  Nor does the Orch OR hypothesis.  Are you confusing superposition with superconductivity?

Look, TP, I know that you really, really want Joy to be right, but your desire is clouding your judgment. There is simply no evidence that superconductivity occurs in the human body, nor that life depends on it.  Joy is simply wrong.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,18:33   

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.

Could you point to his original banning?

Addendum: It seems to have happened sometime after late October 2006.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,19:30   

From this:

Quote
Joy: FYI, Smokey [a.k.a. JAM] was originally banned (if I recall correctly) for being your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice.

I found this:

Quote
Krauze: Smokey, I don't have time for your snearing attitude and your attempts to paint everything I write in the worst possible way. So consider yourself banned from this thread.

That's not a complete ban, only from the thread. And I can't find "your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice".

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,21:44   

Hi Joy. Maybe you’d be kind enough to expand on the topic you started here. http://telicthoughts.com/tmi-29-years-later-lies-and-damned-lies/

I’m especially interested in several of your comments; like this one:
Quote
The steam being released from TMI-2's cooling tower in the hours, days and weeks following the accident was contaminated with primary coolant water and the lode of radioactive material released from failed fuel and melting core, to the tune of millions of curies of everything from noble gases to heavy metals.


The natural draft cooling towers at TMI, and elsewhere including fossil plants, consist of condensate water. Condensate water is several systems removed from primary coolant water. For the condensate system to become contaminated first there would need to be tube ruptures in the generators, then tube ruptures in the condenser. Neither was documented at TMI. Even if TMI had experienced a steam generator tube rupture the primary water wouldn’t have entered the condensate system. What I see you doing here is perpetrating the misconception that the TV and print media fostered at that time, and since. Almost every time there’s a nuclear incident they show a cooling tower. If you really are an ex HP tech then you know better.

And this from you:
Quote
I've seen a full-grown male human being get sucked through a 12-inch hatch that blew once in the airlock into containment, breaking every bone in his body and hurling him more than 50 feet through the air on the other side.


The emergency escape hatch at Surry is 18” in diameter. Please stop an think about this. An escape opening nowhere near large enough for someone to egress containment if the main door fails? Preposterous! I’ll take you saying you’ve seen this happen to mean that you were onsite, but did not personally witness the event. For that to happen you’d have to be looking through the outer hatches sight glass. That’s highly unlikely for someone who issued and read dosimetery. George came out of that accident with five or six broken bones, and a number of internal injuries. He’s doing well, and should retire within a few years. The next time I talk with him I’ll let him know he needs to check out all those other bones that were broken. Maybe he can sue the radiologists for malpractice.

And this:
Quote
Stillbirths rose 280% that year. Deformities of human and animal babies that were born were horrific.


The incidents of miscarriages and stillbirths after the TMI accident was studied. It didn’t show what you have said. What it did show is a very slight increase of about 1% after the meltdown. The surrounding area had a spike in miscarriages a few months prior to the accident, up to very shortly after. I’m can’t remember what this was attributed to, but it certainly wasn’t the accident. It may very well have been a 280 % increase, but most came before the accident that year.  

All in all, your exaggerations, and lack of knowledge of basic nuclear plant systems leaves me somewhat skeptical of your honesty and sanity.

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,21:45   

Hi creeky belly,

You wrote...
Quote
Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing.


I am going to guess what you mean by "way too long".  Max Tegmark suggested the brain so wet, warm and noisy that it would force an almost immediate decoherence.

Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.

Here is a paper from Hameroff discussing the timing of consciousness.  It includes discussions on Libet, cutaneous rabbit and the “color phi” phenomenon.  These scientific observations support the idea that consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds.  Hameroff describes how and why the quantum effects in neural microtubules organized in dendritic structures for processing could and would account for these observations.

You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:12   

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 23 2007,21:44)
....All in all, your exaggerations, and lack of knowledge of basic nuclear plant systems leaves me somewhat skeptical of your honesty and sanity.

Seriously, now.  Long-time ARN and TT participants understand that joy's ramblings are pretty far detached from reality.  But there's no reason to question her honesty - she really believes the stories she tells.

joy's, um, creative fiction gives TT much of its distinctive flavor.  Who's to argue with the wishes of the TT crew, and the face they choose to put forth to the world?  Read and enjoy, and remember who is doing the writing.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:18   

Hi TT
Quote
consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds.


You do realize that *time itself is not quantifyable and may not exist in fact. That is to say time as a physical element and that your statement is as meaningless as the Behe pseudo quantity 'irreducable complexity'?

(Edit for clarity)
*The present moment as a boundary point between future and past moving through linear unitless history as perceived by conciousness.

Are you sure you are not talking about history or perish the thought ....the future?

It seems to me you are conflating an emotional concept i.e. how you feel about time with your personal perception of time.

You might as well say consciousness transcends digestion, which of course is a necessity, do I need to expand on that?

Who was it that said "I think therefore I tick" ?

Say that with an Irish accent TT.

Hitching your metaphysical wagon to Pennock .....*yawn* ....he's almost as prolix as Dembski just better at dodging raindrops ....for my taste anyway.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,22:19   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,18:33)
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.

Could you point to his original banning?

One would think that if I had been banned for bad behavior, the simplest way to demonstrate it would be to point the reader to my comment(s) that represented this behavior.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,23:16   

Hi K.E.

Thanks for your comment.  You wrote...
 
Quote
You do realize that *time itself is not quantifyable and may not exist in fact. That is to say time as a physical element and that your statement is as meaningless as the Behe pseudo quantity 'irreducable complexity'?


I understand time to be just another dimension like the three spatial ones.  This is the lesson from General Relativity.  Each point in Minkowskian Geometry (Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers) consists of four complex coordinates.

Things get interesting in Minkowskian Geometry.  For example, the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line.  This is what happens in the Twins Paradox, it becomes a geometry problem.  The space traveling twin takes a shortcut.

All of this might be just an interesting mathematical exercise except for the scientific verification.  Flying planes East and West around the Earth shows General Relativity (i.e. Minkowskian Geometry) is reality.  Special Relativity was incomplete.  The universe has an inertial frame of reference with time just being one of the four dimensions.

The EPR paradox (which has become a given quantum property) demonstrates interconnected effects over space/time.  When merged with General Relativity, the effects cross both space and time.

If time is a “qseudo quantity” then so is length.  You may not want to know my opinion on the alleged existence of “particles”.

Bringing all the sciences to bear to the fundamental question of consciousness suggest explanations that we otherwise wouldn’t consider.  For example, interconnected effects across time and space.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,23:29   

Quote
... For example, interconnected effects across time and space.


Of course...I was wondering when you were going to get to that, you saved me a lot of time.

Now all you have to do ..... is produce the evidence.

...oh wait ,you aren't suggesting a cosmic quantum pantograph wrote the good book ....are you?

No? Those ancient scribes were dreaming....right?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,00:28   

Quote
Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.

This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.

Quote
You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?

Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,01:07   

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 24 2007,00:28)
And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity.

HOMO

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,06:20   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,22:19)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2007,18:33)
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
JAM was banned from TT for bad behavior once over a year ago, and every time since then for deception.

Could you point to his original banning?

One would think that if I had been banned for bad behavior, the simplest way to demonstrate it would be to point the reader to my comment(s) that represented this behavior.

One would think.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:22   

Hi K.E,

You asked...  
Quote
...oh wait ,you aren't suggesting a cosmic quantum pantograph wrote the good book ....are you?

No? Those ancient scribes were dreaming....right?
Did I fail to mention that most people would consider me an Atheist in the same way Dawkins is an Atheist.  Technically I am agnostic towards God, fairies and orbiting tea pots.  These things might exist but I doubt there is empirical evidence any of them.

Where Dawkins and I are different is that I embrace Gould's NOMA.  I consider philosophical questions distinct and separate from scientific ones.  Philosophy is about searching for Truth (capital "T").  Science is about determining useful knowledge.

I believe the Oracle of Delphi was both accurate and prophetic with the proclamation that no one is wiser than Socrates.

I don't know the Truth, do you?

While the search for Truth is important, I generally find it more enjoyable, and fruitful, to discuss science.  At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting...

Let's do Science!   :D

See my response to creeky belly for that.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:41   

Quote
At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting...

Let's do Science!  


Well ....what a suggestion! Does that method at that place seem slightly oxymoronic to you?

As far as teh TRVTH© is concerned .....I always reach for my dictionary.

http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/

TRUTH, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.

As I get older I become more suspcious of language and its uses.


Anyway good luck.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:00   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway....
She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.

Joy is exceptionally paranoid and self-important, and I agree with JAM - not very knowledgible in biology.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:13   

Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.

Yeah...  I wonder - how many new people post at TT?

I've not wasted my time there in some time, but when last I visited, I recall seeing the same few names starting threads and making comments.

Must be all those folks that are signing on to ID are doig it elsewhere.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,11:03   

Hi creeky belly,
You wrote...    
Quote
This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.

Have you heard of Bucky Balls?  These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms.  They demonstrate EPR-like effects.  The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls?  Penrose offers it is due to their mass.

By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994.  While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd".  I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects.

The Schrödinger's cat paradox refuses to go away by itself.   Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it.

Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror.  The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.

 
Quote
Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it.

You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it).  However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years.  I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons.  Do you know of any?  I will look for them.

Penrose argues against Strong AI.  That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm.  And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms).  Here is Planet Math's analysis of it.  Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,11:04   

Quote (Art @ Sep. 23 2007,22:12)
But there's no reason to question her honesty - she really believes the stories she tells.

Art,

1) The hypothesis that she really believes that I was banned for "bad behavior" predicts that she will point to evidence of the behavior that she judged to be bad. We may not agree with her conclusion, but she shouldn't be reticent.

2) The hypothesis that she doesn't really believe that I was banned for "bad behavior" predicts that she won't point to any evidence, and continue to make vague accusations.

  
  3492 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]