Luc Turpin

Meant electrons not atoms for orbital bond; was not paying attention Understanding is much better; implications and what relates to what will take time. Yes, two constants one for each nuclues and therefore each wavefunction; got it! Need to put into practice what I learnt to get more acquainted with it.

First article is interesting as it shows how to measure consciousness complexity, and speaks to iNow's post on how to measure consciousness. Said article provides a few examples of how it could be done. Good! Second article shows strong rival theories, which can be added to numerous other ones. The issue for neuroscientists is that they have too many theories, with none so far being able to account for all various aspects of consciousness. As for an emergent process, I tend to shy away from this, because, for me at least, it seems to show that we do not understand, so we say it is emergent. Finally, many theories and none prevailing, may also be an indication that we need to look elswhere for a suitable theory of mind" Good point! nothing better than a 'disruptive" technology for people to start talking about intelligence and what it means.

Understood! Meaning no energy is lost just shared; Hesitant, but does this have anything to do with the law of conservation of energy? A linear combination (superposition) of both slit one and slit 2????? Here is my understanding of the above Superposition - everywhere A affect-influence B electronics - current superposition is linear Beam - Total deflection (concentrated, center deflection) is non linear QM - LCAO is linear Schrodinger Equation applicable to atoms Each electron has a wavefunction Wave functions describe orbitals with 0, 1, or 2 atoms two atoms with one atom orbital each bond, creating a molecule and new bonding orbital; new orbital different from either two A linear combination is used to calculate new bonding orbital? adding a constant coefficient when nucleis are of different elements

Thanks for the response; I need to know more about integrated information theory. My colleages in the physics forum would not agree to your statement that its part of QM. It is not through the "Observer Effect" as what is really intended there is not the observer per say, but the observation by an aparatus or object. About a few hundred thousand neuroscientists are talking about it and they do not all agree with Tononi 😄 We are far from panpsychism! I am looking for a discussion, not a conflict; its about learning, not necessarily being right. "Substrate", can be used in other applications than construction 'Most consciousness chats on a science forum just waste time"; then don't participate and there will be less pages. Disapointed with the level of discussion.

The mind can be indirectly measured with scanning devices (MRI). Wilder Penfield used electric prods to tease out information; experiments such as those indicated in the second portion of the reference section of the first post, observation on the living can be undertaken, etc. As for the baseline state, I need to think about that. 900- key points are that there is no center for mind in brain; it is all over; mind is also all over in nature; and we cannot explain how a kg or so of living tissue creates consciousness. To me, this means that we might have to entertain other ideas to progress in learning about consciousness See first part of the reference section of the first post: mind is in the cerebral cortex, deep grey matter, motor cortex, somato-cognitive action network, neurons for complex social thinking, white matter, right and left parietal junction; posterior cingulate, cortical midline, mirror neuron system, dorsomedial subsystem (at least for part of it), medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, bilateral temporoparietal junction, posterior superior temporal sulcus, and now the hippocampus; I remain on my position that there is no center of mind in the brain. You are right that there are multiple layers of intelligence; but my definition of intelligence is that it is a substrate of mind, and we are talking about mind. Mind in nature tells us that it is not constricted to us and other higher state animals; that it is in, maybe, all living things; this tells us something important; and we need to figure that one out (scientists). If its in all living things, then can we say that it is essential to life? I do not know! As for being an important man, I am not. No on the algorithm question, but I am very interested in findings out; will do a search. Agree with you on having different levels of consciousness; on putting them into equation, I need to inverstigate.

Got that, we do not know the trajectory and interferes with itself, but did I not read in the thread above that in a superposition of state, there is no energy, but a single quanta of energy has, well, energy. Where did I go wrong. That's why I was talkiing about a single photon being emitted. Great! great! need to assimilate all of this info! I will get back to you sometime today. Great also on "linear combination"; think I got that. Again, appreciated! learning a lot! still confused on certain things, and misinterpreting things, but staying focused

Well said will not!

Good questions; need to leave for an important meeting, will respond later in the day.

1 Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me; from my original post; there are many interpretations of this. Similar nebulous concepts lacking utility is what enabled you to respond to this post; it is a fundamental aspect of nature, that we like it or not; in science, we are comfortable with the objective aspect of the world, but not the subjectife par; but, discarding it because we do not want to deal with it is unscientific. Please have a look at a few of the references (section on how mind works) provided before discarding as useless nostrum.

What is LCAO bonding method? In the double-slit experiment with photons being fired one at the time, is there superposition? if so? when or where?

Once again, thank you very much for your response. I read your previous post and feel that we come at the problem from different perspectives. You come with a brain-based and evolution perspective while I come with a more open perspective of let's see what research findings tells us about consciousness and then go where it leads us, even if it brings us to naturalistic dualism. Note: I still have opinions about it (see below). I strongly disagree with your statement that mind is not quite the enigma some researchers conclude. From neuroscientists themselves "consciousness research far from converging towards a unifying paradigm, has become more fractious and chaotic than ever". As for "the primary process or mechanism in brain function that produces a mind is homeostasis", I would like for you to expand on this as it is unfamiliar to me. As for the overall brain-evolution theory of mind, it is one of many out there still waiting to be proven. For myself, I think that a major litmus test for a functional theory of consciousness is when it will take into account the following: that information is a fundamental property of reality and that it must account for consciousness in any system. I also have a hunch (not very scientific) that, like John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, quantum mechanic "may" have something to do with it. My friends in the QM forum will be cringing at this idea, but until proven wrong, I maintain that information theory and QM might have a say in it. Finally, as stated in my original post, there is no center so far of mind in brain, consciousness, or at least its substrate, intelligence, leaves its markings in all living things and there is no currently accepted theory of how brains create minds. And this speaks loudly that we may be looking at the problem in the wrong way. I invite you to have a look at a few of the references that I provide and start with this and my litmus test, in testing out your theory. I hope that our conversation will continue.

Thank you for your response. I have pressing matters; will formally respond tomorrow. However, data makes me question your interpretation of mind.

Godel work is different; unfamiliar with this book; will get it

Apologies; did not know; will not do it again!

Mind! Introduction In its simplest form, mind is about being aware of oneself, and of the world around oneself. For some, mind is strictly confined to human brains while others see it everywhere. So, where is mind and how does it work? Were is the Mind in the Brain? After decades of scientific investigation and ongoing debate, no center has yet been found in the brain for subjective experience. Research so far has yielded inconclusive results. Where the “I” resides in the machine remains elusive (references below). Searching for the Mind in Nature! Mounting evidence points to intelligence being everywhere in nature. Animals, even small ones, plants, microbes and cells appear to show signs of intelligence; a bold statement being made here! There may be more than randomness-reactiveness coming out of nature (references below). How Does the Mind Works Through the Brain? Again, after decades of research, there is no understanding on how the mind works through the brain (the hard-problem). Christof Kock (scientist) lost a bet to David Chalmers (philosopher) on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness. How consciousness is extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh remains a mystery. And the bet was renewed for another 25 years (references below). Statements We know a lot about brain, little about mind! It’s a big step from the non-living to the living. It’s an even bigger one from matter to mind! So much complexity and subjectivity arising out of spontaneous reactions of matter! The hardware problem is easy. The software one is not! Why would nature even bother with consciousness in a matter universe? Notes 1 Subjective experience, intelligence, consciousness are substates of mind; at least for me. 2 An informal review process was used to confirm notions presented above. Where is Mind in Brain? Cerebral cortex & Deep Grey Matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115284/#:~:text='%20The%20mind%20cannot%20be%20localised,grey%20matter%20form%20important%20components. Motor cortex - somato-cognitive action network, https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/scientists-identify-mind-body-nexus-human-brain-2023-04-19/ Lateral frontal lobe https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16725-theory-of-mind-could-help-explain-belief-in-god/ Neurons for complex social thinking https://hms.harvard.edu/news/theory-mind White Matter https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-10-scientists-powerful-brain-white.html Right and left parietal junction; posterior cingulate https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01768.x Cortical midline, mirror neuron system https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000048 Dorsomedial subsystem (at least for part of it) https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/15/1/63/5733878 Medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate, bilateral temporoparietal junction, posterior superior temporal sulcus https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tCgTDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&dq=location+of+mind+in+brain&ots=QvqpCYGDjs&sig=XVLpTURu2jikwB9Gs5HIN9au9ys#v=onepage&q=location%20of%20mind%20in%20brain&f=false Anatomical regions far apart from one another https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6871093/ Its in multiple areas of the brain https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-4996-9_26 Specialized and domain general structure working in tandem https://researchoutreach.org/articles/explaining-mind-works-new-theory/ No brain boundaries between thinking, feeling, deciding, etc. https://www.quantamagazine.org/mental-phenomena-dont-map-into-the-brain-as-expected-20210824/ Its not even in the brain https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-your-mind-isnt-confined-to-your-brain-or-even-your-body Searching for Mind in Nature! https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4 https://phys.org/news/2023-11-bacteria-memories-generations.html https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0LTDhqe5A https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/ https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/ https://phys.org/news/2023-10-reveal-hidden-sensory-mechanism-hair.html https://phys.org/news/2023-10-soil-viruses-interact-bacteria.html https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/ https://phys.org/news/2023-10-female-animals-unusual-malesnew.html https://phys.org/news/2023-10-chloroplasts-photosynthesis-theyre-key-player.html https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cell-walls-mechanical-properties-division.html Animals – Jon Lieff, MD (jonlieffmd.com) https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/plants https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/microbes https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM How Does Mind Work Through Brain? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/ https://scitechdaily.com/contrary-to-previous-belief-new-study-links-brain-waves-directly-to-memory/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/theory-of-mind#:~:text=Theory%20of%20Mind%20(ToM)%E2%80%94,regions%2C%20including%20the%20temporoparietal%20junction. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbot.2020.00060/full https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/ https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/so_how_does_the_mind_work.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01142.x https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1031432/what-is-mind-brain-body-connection/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9MKzwoWPgwMVqVlHAR3dmAzIEAMYASAAEgIKC_D_BwE https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/thinking-and-awareness/2019/theory-of-mind-091119 https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-origin-of-life-and-consciousness https://scitechdaily.com/challenging-long-held-assumptions-new-research-reveals-how-nuclear-spin-impacts-biological-processes/ https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-10-scientists.html https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1183498.pdf https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/the-life-of-a-thought-in-the-brain https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/networks-of-genes-respond-to-social-experiences https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/human-brain/what-is-the-mind-5-theoretical-possibilities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJFvdr7NoA https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-22399-006 Notes: 1 This is an inexhaustive-cursory search for reference material. 2 Some references are debatable as to their relevance, but can easily be replaced by more relevant ones. 3 A good primer for discussion can be obtained here: https://jonlieffmd.com/blog

Impossible 🙂 Yes! Yes! Non linear expression becoming linear? So, you can "package" non linear as an expression and place it in a linear equation? Posted; would be honoured to obtain comments from you, Joigus, Genady, etc.

For KJW's riddle, I was not even on the right post. The analogy was useful. All is well in math-land for me so far. It is with great humility that I am learning basic-math once again; but this time with purpose Yes, noticed square brackets; understand their meaning; noticed also a small mistake in one equation. I am sticking to the program! At a proper tme, I would like for you to substantiate on the predictive phenomena of applied maths. Also, Linearity is essential to QM because quantum superposition demands it. Why is it so? But can wait if we need to stick to the basics for now! I will be posting something on Mind in the Medical Science-neuroscience section tomorrow. It might be of interest to you. Again, appreciate your time and attention!

For those interested in health and nutrition, Dr. Michael Gregger just came out with another book tittled How Not to Age which has over 13,000 references. All evidence based health and nutrition; everything is backed-up by science. This is a book to read!

Failed my first test; probably looking at the wrong post. Got everything; understand My epiphany moment is keeping me focused at least for now. Was trying to choose a 'sick' smiley face for joigus's response, but ended up with a mad one. Waiting in expectation for the next post; thanks for all of this 🤢maybe this one is better

All good! Confirms what applied Maths is all about. When you have time, I would like for you to substantiate on the predictive phenomena of applied maths. This is getting good for me; hope you don't get bored with it? And the answer to the kjw's riddle, is it model development, observation, conclusions?

Good one😑

I had some sort of an epiphany while skiing today. Training was demanding, but worthwhile. I think that I now know what is going wrong for me. While you are talking about QM, I am trying to pick-out things from these conversations that fit my mental picture of reality, which is heavily based on countess research findings that I read from various science fields. I also realized that I cannot do this without a sound basis of QM. Obviouos to studiot, but not for the one lost in the forest. From now on, I will try and stick with learning about QM, but old habits die hard.

You lead and I will follow. will leave for now Chaos, unless someone mentions it. You know that I will give myself a headache trying to figure out the KJW basic? Linear versus applied maths is not familiar to me. Can wait for the next post. Cant wait that is To me, that chaos should have little or nothing to do with QM, is incompatible with my view that QM or physics shoulld be the basis for all else. But I will leave it at that for the time being, so I can stick to the program. I feel that this the program is going to be very usefull to me.

Both posts on linear and non-linear reassured me that I at least understood them in mathematical terms. So, its definition lies on the strict sense of linear (line) and non-linear (curved) for mathematics. I read throught the thread again (impressive posts from Seth, KJW and others) and rereading some old complexity/chaos material to try and determine what i am not grasping here. At this point, the only thing that I can put a finger on is that that one (complexity/chaos) appears to infuse more meaning (more effect?) to the terms (linear, non-linear) than the other (QM-math). For example, one seems to restrict more the interelationship of things while the other is more liberal at it. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of a shoe, the horse was lost; For want of a horse, the rider was lost; For want of a rider, the battle was lost; For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost. Maybe I am mixing up non-linearity with chaos. Confusion still reins in my head. Need to think! Note: I understand quite well the concept of two worlds: one outside and one inside our heads. I would also venture to say that QM is a third version of the world and that other science have also their own view of the world. Comming back to the curved line on the diagram: what happens to the trajectory of the line after many-many iterations? And what kind of non-linear equations are required to be able to see the effects of some properties (sensitive to initial condition, figure such as the Lorenz attractor, etc.) of complexity/chaos? Made slight corrections to it

Tipping points I know, but not now as i have so much to figure out before that