| Author |
Message |
Terje Mathisen
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Ken Taylor wrote:
| Quote: | "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> wrote in message
Uh, no. You must not have read much of "Skybuck's" material, or
you would have realized that it's really a cross posting prototype of
an advanced virus that escaped from the MIT artificial intellegence
labs.
That's the first time I've seen 'Skybuck' and 'intelligence' in one
sentence.
BG |
MIT (and the rest of the world as well) would often be perfectly happy
with AS (Artificial Stupidity) instead of AI.
To me Skybuck seems like an alpha test version of AS.
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Hopwood
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Skybuck Flying wrote:
| Quote: | Ok,
What if human brains can communicate with each other ? :)
Maybe they can do this but we simply haven't detected it yet ;)
|
Indeed, once you've extended your conciousness into the second
nonspacelike dimension, all you need to do is^W^W^W^X^C<Alt-F4>:q:q
Oh, bugger. Now I've gone and blown my cover again.
Hang on a sec while I go and find the target population mass mental
readjustment device. This won't hurt a bit...
--
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk>
Observer-Inquisitor for the Eridanian Collective to Sol III, civilisation
B [nuclear net genocidal ecocidal !ai !warp !clue self-limiting] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:24:20 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
| Quote: | Skybuck Flying wrote:
Ok,
What if human brains can communicate with each other ? :)
Maybe they can do this but we simply haven't detected it yet ;)
Indeed, once you've extended your conciousness into the second
nonspacelike dimension, all you need to do is^W^W^W^X^C<Alt-F4>:q:q
Oh, bugger. Now I've gone and blown my cover again.
Hang on a sec while I go and find the target population mass mental
readjustment device. This won't hurt a bit...
|
Ever drawn a Venn diagram of your own consciousness?
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote (in
<pan.2005.09.07.18.34.03.967844@doubleclick.net>) about 'Human brains
communicating with each other ?', on Wed, 7 Sep 2005:
| Quote: | Ever drawn a Venn diagram of your own consciousness?
|
I thought I'd try something vastly simpler first. Yours. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leho Pärnapuu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
larwe@larwe.com wrote:
| Quote: | What if human brains can communicate with each other ? :)
Grow or borrow one. Use it to communicate. Report your results.
|
Will and directed brainwork
It's will that controlls us. Everything you do (think, eat, move) you
want it.
1. Humans have ability to direct all one's brainwork (thoughts,
feelings, wills) to another one. That means you can make another soul to
feel what you do, feel, think. He will feel his own and sender life at
same time.
2. You can use your muscles with will what controlls them. You can
controll some another human body(muscles) with your own will. That means
you can make another soul to do(think) what you want (to want what you
want). His muscles will do what both of you want. You can think to
another one, who will feel his own and the sender's thoughts at same time.
You must want it.
That's life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Leho Pärnapuu wrote:
| Quote: | larwe@larwe.com wrote:
What if human brains can communicate with each other ? :)
Grow or borrow one. Use it to communicate. Report your results.
Will and directed brainwork
It's will that controlls us.
|
No it dosnt.
| Quote: | Everything you do (think, eat, move) you
want it.
|
No.
| Quote: |
1. Humans have ability to direct all one's brainwork (thoughts,
feelings, wills) to another one. That means you can make another soul
to feel what you do, feel, think. He will feel his own and sender
life at same time.
|
The brain is an electro-chemical machine. Period. There is no "I" that
controls it. A perceived "I" is simply an illusion. Consciousness is no
more than a VDU. Consciousness cannot do anything.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html
| Quote: |
2. You can use your muscles with will what controlls them. You can
controll some another human body(muscles) with your own will. That
means you can make another soul to do(think) what you want (to want
what you want). His muscles will do what both of you want. You can
think to another one, who will feel his own and the sender's thoughts
at same time.
You must want it.
That's life.
|
No it isnt.
Kevin Aylward
431infoEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bernd Paysan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Kevin Aylward wrote:
| Quote: | The brain is an electro-chemical machine. Period. There is no "I" that
controls it. A perceived "I" is simply an illusion. Consciousness is no
more than a VDU. Consciousness cannot do anything.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html
|
I don't fully agree with what you write. It's clear that conciousness is
acting as observer, but it is wrong that this observer doesn't feed back.
All thoughts inside the brain influence each others, including those that
result in conciousness and the imagination of an "I". Also, as the brain is
a electro-chemical machine, all thoughts have physical representations, so
there is no difference between "thought" and "matter". Thoughts are
configurations of matter.
Quantum mechanics does not really tell us whether there's a truly random
component, or just a pseudo-random component. Bohm worked on a
deterministic QM theory, and his theory gives the same result as the
classical Copenhagen interpretaton (with "truly random components"). The
funny thing is that a world with the Darwin laws as we find here will
create the concept of "free will" regardless if there is pseudo-random or
true randomness on the QM level, since a pseudo-random trial and error
approach leads to the same results as a fully random one. The concept of
free will is superior to the concept of fatalism, so in the long run
civilizations are bound to find and use this concept. "Free will" changes
the threshold to do things, because you believe that they can be done.
The question, whether the introduction of a "soul" is arbitrary or not: It
is really true that people do have a (somewhat) consistent "I", as you can
see when you find the few people who have not. The misconception is that
the "I" is nothing metaphysical. It is not immortal, as it is bound to the
brain that creates it. And it does indeed change when the brain changes.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:00 am Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
| Quote: | Quantum mechanics does not really tell us whether there's a truly random
component, or just a pseudo-random component. Bohm worked on a
deterministic QM theory, and his theory gives the same result as the
classical Copenhagen interpretaton (with "truly random components").
|
If it's a pseudo-random component, there must be "hidden variables".
Aren't hidden variables proven not to exist by Bell's Inequalities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Bernd Paysan wrote:
| Quote: | Kevin Aylward wrote:
The brain is an electro-chemical machine. Period. There is no "I"
that controls it. A perceived "I" is simply an illusion.
Consciousness is no more than a VDU. Consciousness cannot do
anything.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html
I don't fully agree with what you write. It's clear that conciousness
is acting as observer, but it is wrong that this observer doesn't
feed back.
|
I don't claim that actions are not different depending on whether or not
consciousness is present. Clearly, the electro-chemical machine takes
action dependant on whether or not "it" perceives another
electro-chemical machine as conscious. For example, slicing an apple
verses slicing a baby. However, consciousness is not a physical entity,
therefore it cannot actually do anything physical.
| Quote: | All thoughts inside the brain influence each others,
including those that result in conciousness and the imagination of an
"I".
|
Yes, technically, the physical state of the brain is connected to all
other brains physical states, as described by quantum mechanics.
However, this effect is insignificant.
| Quote: | Also, as the brain is a electro-chemical machine, all thoughts
have physical representations, so there is no difference between
"thought" and "matter". Thoughts are configurations of matter.
|
Sure, thoughts require a physical embodiment.
| Quote: |
Quantum mechanics does not really tell us whether there's a truly
random component, or just a pseudo-random component.
|
Yes, in principle, but its the simplest solution.
| Quote: | Bohm worked on a
deterministic QM theory, and his theory gives the same result as the
classical Copenhagen interpretaton (with "truly random components").
|
I am very much aware of Bohmian Mechanics. Its an interesting
interpretation. The issue I have with it is that it adds an extra
unobservable bit. I generally apply Occams razor.
The MWI (many worlds (universes)) interpretation also eliminates
randomness. Again, I see this as a superficial add on.
Randomness has a nice feature. It can account for why the universe could
come into existence spontaneously.
| Quote: | The funny thing is that a world with the Darwin laws as we find here
will create the concept of "free will" regardless if there is
pseudo-random or true randomness on the QM level, since a
pseudo-random trial and error approach leads to the same results as a
fully random one. The concept of free will is superior to the concept
of fatalism, so in the long run civilizations are bound to find and
use this concept. "Free will" changes the threshold to do things,
because you believe that they can be done.
The question, whether the introduction of a "soul" is arbitrary or
not: It is really true that people do have a (somewhat) consistent
"I", as you can see when you find the few people who have not. The
misconception is that the "I" is nothing metaphysical. It is not
immortal, as it is bound to the brain that creates it. And it does
indeed change when the brain changes.
|
Yes.
Kevin Aylward
431infoEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clifford Heath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Bernd Paysan wrote:
| Quote: | I don't fully agree with what you write. It's clear that conciousness is
acting as observer, but it is wrong that this observer doesn't feed back.
|
I'd go one further, and venture that consciousness is the
result of, even *is* the feedback... together with the memory
of controlling sporadic oscillation. The machine still sort-of
works when the loop is broken, but there's no recollection of
control, hence no consciousness.
| Quote: | Quantum mechanics does not really tell us whether there's a truly random
component,
|
....and it doesn't matter. Every particle in the universe has an
significant influence in every nanosecond on every other particle,
and so each draws on the pool of the total entropy of its historic
light-cone. What remains are the observable processes in those
particles which we refer to as entities. They are thus arbitrarily
divided from other entities because they have an observable
continuity across timescales that seem to matter, even though the
particles that participate in the process may change.
Clifford Heath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bernd Paysan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Eric Smith wrote:
| Quote: | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
Quantum mechanics does not really tell us whether there's a truly random
component, or just a pseudo-random component. Bohm worked on a
deterministic QM theory, and his theory gives the same result as the
classical Copenhagen interpretaton (with "truly random components").
If it's a pseudo-random component, there must be "hidden variables".
Aren't hidden variables proven not to exist by Bell's Inequalities?
|
No, Bell's Inequalities talk about local realistic theories. I.e. a local
realistic theory has to meet the Inequalities (maximum correlation < 2).
Bohm's theory (with hidden variables) is non-local, the Copenhangen QM
(without hidden variables) is non-realistic, and therefore the maximum
correlation < 2*sqrt(2) is possible.
There's no special Observer in Bohm's theory, however, there still are
"spoky action at a distance". The question wether these actions really
exist, or really are non-local, is not completely closed, though the
community believes so:
There are a number of static EPR experiments, which proof nothing, since a
static setup can communicate the settings of the "observers" at light-speed
without problems. Nothing spoky about actions at a distance as such.
There are two dynamic EPR experiments (switched polarizers), which would
indeed proof the point, when they didn't have some "minor" flaws:
- The first one, from Aspect et al used a 50MHz switch at 6m distance from
the light source. So a communication at light-speed would transfer a
previous setting of the switch to the light source, which however is the
same as when the photon finally arrives at the polarizer. So one would
wonder why Aspect et al used this single switch frequency/distance pair,
and didn't notice the flaw (Zeilinger did).
- The second one, from Weihs and Zeilinger, replaced the cyclical switch by
a random switch, taking out any argument in that direction. However, though
they used a very light-sensitive photo-detector, they could not reach a
visibility of more than 50% per single photon (or 25% per coincidence), and
thus did not show a violation of Bell's inequalities at all (maximum
correlation < 0.71 and thus < 2). Unfortunately, they didn't publish this
problem in the EPR article, but later, in a quantum cryptography article.
The 50% visibility could indicate a sinusoid dependency between visibility
and polarizer setup, which doesn't need non-locality at all to explain it.
I think more and better results wether QM really needs to be non-local or
non-realistic will come out of quantum computers. They *need* non-local
effects to work fast. So far, quantum computers with more than a few qbits
slow down significantly, and also are very sensitive for disturbances (and
entanglement is lost then), which sounds more like there has to be a
light-speed communication between everything involved in the experimental
setup.
So summary:
* Hidden variables don't conflict with Bell's Inequalities.
* The theory that Bell's Inequalities are violated under those circumstances
that matter is not verified to full satisfaction.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Hopwood
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
Bernd Paysan wrote:
| Quote: | I think more and better results whether QM really needs to be non-local or
non-realistic will come out of quantum computers. They *need* non-local
effects to work fast.
|
It's much easier to attack this question directly than to attack it via
building a quantum computer. The latter may not be feasible at all (as argued
in <http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0110326>, for example).
--
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Colvin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
| Quote: | All the loons crawl out of the woodwork.
|
Block that metaphor!
--
mac the naïf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Human brains communicating with each other ? |
|
|
| Quote: | 1. Humans have ability to direct all one's brainwork (thoughts,
feelings, wills) to another one. That means you can make another soul
to feel what you do, feel, think. He will feel his own and sender
life at same time.
The brain is an electro-chemical machine. Period. There is no "I" that
controls it. A perceived "I" is simply an illusion. Consciousness is no
more than a VDU. Consciousness cannot do anything.
|
It must be the holiday season.
All the loons crawl out of the woodwork. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in