Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 12-23-2002, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Does Dembski really buy into it?

From <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483;p=1" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

The verdict is still not in with Chris Langan's CTMU, but it was clear to me and the editors at PCID that Chris had thought deeply about some hard problems. What's more, it was clear that Chris was largely self-taught and working in isolation over many years. ISCID therefore wanted to provide a forum for Chris to disseminate his work, gain feedback, and bring his ideas into the conversational mainstream. Perhaps it will turn out to be not only a wild idea but also a misguided idea (I don't think so). But at least PCID is providing a forum for free inquiry that is blocked by most of the mainstream journals.

First the Raelians. Now the Langans and Rierson... Not bad company.

excreationist · 12-23-2002, 11:04 PM

Russell E. Rierson:
Do you think memories of past lives are actual past lives then? How is this information accessed? I thought all of our memories were just encoded in our neurons. I think the memories of different people would be encoded in different ways. I think transferring a memory would be more complicated than just copying some neurons across... I think the "meaning" of the information of a neuron is defined by its relationship with all the other neurons... just like the "meaning" of 01000100010101000 can be different on a computer in different contexts - e.g. it could represent a colour or a sound frequency, or a timer, etc. So what does that tough work of translating one person's memories to anothers? What about if that mechanism fails? Then the second person would get false past life memories.
Do you think dreams have a "supernatural" (cosmic-type) explanation? Do you think they could be memories from other lives or other dimensions like hell or heaven, etc?

Quote:

Particles can be sent through a diffraction grating one at a time, observed as particles, yet after several-many particles have been sent through said grating, a diffraction pattern begins to take shape.

Thus it would appear that a governing mechanism or principle, is in effect. Consciousness?

The reductionistic worldview is a crumbling monolith. Change is necessary.

Perhaps you are talking about the <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation" target="_blank">Copenhagen interpretation</a> of quantum mechanics where it says that the waveform collapses when it is observed. i.e. it is affected by our conscious observation.

It isn't the only theory about quantum mechanics though... another one is <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation" target="_blank">Everett many-worlds interpretation</a>. This is sometimes also called the "many-minds" interpretation or multiple histories (which I think <a href="http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/manyworld.html" target="_blank">Stephen Hawking</a> prefers). Apparently Richard Feynman also supports that theory.

Adrian Selby · 12-23-2002, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Therefore our thought processes are also waves spreading out through space and time.

These waves interact with other waves.

If consciousness is also a wave property spreading throughout the universe then consciousness is ubiquitous.

Thought processes are waves but consciousness is a wave property? Do you mean a property of thoughts? Must it therefore be a property of all waves?

Also, if there are waves that are conscious, how does that lead to the conclusion that a possible governing mechanism could be consciousness?

As I suggested on the other thread, I think you're confusing the properties of particles with the property of consciousness, which doesn't reside in particles, it resides in firing of synapses in a complex system of neurons. You don't break consciousness down into consciousness particles that spread like waves, a specific thought could be the process of a huge number of synapses across interrelated neural nets firing, the thought itself is thus not identified with a particle, how this thought spreads out is therefore confusing, do the particles that constitute the entire process of that thought as a process of synapses firing in a certain way go out across the universe? Does my thought that this is a category mistake interact with my baby daughter's thoughts, such as they are, and if so how can you, me or she be sure that interaction has taken place between thoughts, rather than just particles that, were they in a certain arrangement, would have been thoughts if the particles were part of biological structures etc.

Do you think in every particle in the brain there is a thought???

Russell E. Rierson · 12-25-2002, 03:27 PM

Lambda = h/p , where p is momentum and h is Plancks constant.

psi^2 is where the greatest probability of position and momentum are.

{KE + PE}*psi = E*psi

Motion is relative. A moving system has relative position and momentum. Also objects moving in tandem can be explained as being at rest with respect to each other.

Momentum is a wave property; position is a particle property. Relativity must also conform to the principle of duality, as does all relations within our universe. Wave function "collapse" does not mean the wave function dissolves.

{<-{->{<-{U}->}<-}->}

The "resonating universe".
One observer's superposition is another observer's actualization.

Recall the "reverse universe" of William Sidis.

<a href="http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm</a>

Time also must have a ..."reverse" if duality holds across the board. A self "contained" system.

Russ

Russell E. Rierson · 12-25-2002, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:
<strong>

Do you think in every particle in the brain there is a thought???</strong>

A thought is more than 1 particle interaction.

particles interacting can correspond to 1's and 0's of Boolean logic.

1010101... etc.

excreationist · 12-25-2002, 06:16 PM

Russell E. Rierson:
What do you think about what I wrote - like the questions and what I said about the Copenhagen interpretation vs. the Many Worlds (or many histories or many minds) interpretation.

Demosthenes · 12-26-2002, 08:40 PM

I don't, I gave up after the fourth sentence.

Tom Ames · 12-27-2002, 01:00 AM

but I notice that Langan has coined the term "noeon", to refer to the smallest possible unit of knowledge.

Now why do you suppose that he might have need for such a unit?

Adrian Selby · 12-27-2002, 01:03 AM

A slightly cheesy question, if my thought processes are waves spreading out, how come nobody can know my thoughts when in my proximity?

It's all very well banging your head, but I believe its you that is unclear, you call consciousness a wave property, but a wave property of what?

I don't want to risk my comments appearing on two threads relating to the same issue, so I'll leave it on the other thread, but a clear definition of what consciousness is would be useful. You've argued that consciousness exists on many levels, so a rock is just less conscious than a human. I don't accept that. I accept that both are constituted of matter, but I do not think that both are arranged such that consciousness exists. This is because I tie consciousness to certain arrangements of matter. This is the common usage. What use is it to say a rock is conscious and we are more conscious when we can act, and we have volition, and very many other things. A rock is not purposive.

These things, and others of course, are part of the criteria of consciousness I tend to use.

You are saying that consciousness is ubiquitous because everything processes information. I've asked a question on the other thread about information, and what you think constitutes information.

Do you think there is anything that isn't conscious?

12-27-2002, 01:00 AM	#18
Tom Ames Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nacogdoches, Texas Posts: 260	I don't but I notice that Langan has coined the term "noeon", to refer to the smallest possible unit of knowledge. Now why do you suppose that he might have need for such a unit?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-25-2002, 03:27 PM	#14
Russell E. Rierson Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: usa Posts: 31	Lambda = h/p , where p is momentum and h is Plancks constant. psi^2 is where the greatest probability of position and momentum are. {KE + PE}psi = Epsi Motion is relative. A moving system has relative position and momentum. Also objects moving in tandem can be explained as being at rest with respect to each other. Momentum is a wave property; position is a particle property. Relativity must also conform to the principle of duality, as does all relations within our universe. Wave function "collapse" does not mean the wave function dissolves. {<-{->{<-{U}->}<-}->} The "resonating universe". One observer's superposition is another observer's actualization. Recall the "reverse universe" of William Sidis. <a href="http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm</a> Time also must have a ..."reverse" if duality holds across the board. A self "contained" system. Russ

12-25-2002, 06:16 PM	#16
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Russell E. Rierson: What do you think about what I wrote - like the questions and what I said about the Copenhagen interpretation vs. the Many Worlds (or many histories or many minds) interpretation.

12-26-2002, 08:40 PM	#17
Demosthenes Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: a speck of dirt Posts: 2,510	I don't, I gave up after the fourth sentence.

12-27-2002, 01:03 AM	#19
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	A slightly cheesy question, if my thought processes are waves spreading out, how come nobody can know my thoughts when in my proximity? It's all very well banging your head, but I believe its you that is unclear, you call consciousness a wave property, but a wave property of what? I don't want to risk my comments appearing on two threads relating to the same issue, so I'll leave it on the other thread, but a clear definition of what consciousness is would be useful. You've argued that consciousness exists on many levels, so a rock is just less conscious than a human. I don't accept that. I accept that both are constituted of matter, but I do not think that both are arranged such that consciousness exists. This is because I tie consciousness to certain arrangements of matter. This is the common usage. What use is it to say a rock is conscious and we are more conscious when we can act, and we have volition, and very many other things. A rock is not purposive. These things, and others of course, are part of the criteria of consciousness I tend to use. You are saying that consciousness is ubiquitous because everything processes information. I've asked a question on the other thread about information, and what you think constitutes information. Do you think there is anything that isn't conscious?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.