bombus

Brains may merely utilize what we call consciousness in the same way that eyes utilize light, ears sound etc... Of course this cannot be proven...

Yes, but that is due to drugs being illegal and expensive. Our local police chief wants to legalize heroin and give it to drug addicts for free on the NHS. Apparently the crime that accompanies a single heroin hit costs society around £500 a time on average, but a dose of heroin on the NHS would cost only 50p! Plus it negates the need for addicts to mug people and spread misery, or become prostitutes etc. Anyway, a bit off topic there...

Fine. I doubt 1) and agree with 2). The point is you claimed 'we understand perfectly how the brain works at the deepest level - they're called neurons, and there's no deeper level. This is just not true. Ignoring any speculation about QM, exactly how brains work is not well understood, especially the role of other cells and inter-cell structures such as glial cells, neurolemnocytes, synapses, microtubules, centrioles, etc. The idea that brain function cannot be reduced further than a neurone firing or not firing is very probably false (although to be fair, you didn't quite say that, but it seems implied). And yes, I do know messages are transmitted by ions, I learnt that in school, but they are essentially chemical transport systems for electrons - it all boils down to the same thing unless you wish to be particularly pedantic.

Well maybe you should pull up others as well for a change. e.g Mokele's claim that he knows more about brains than I. As far as I am aware that kinda talk is not allowed on this forum. I did not change the meaning of deepest level. Mokele states that there IS NO DEEPER LEVEL. And then goes on to say he knows more about brain functioning than me... Well, you make a good point there, fair enough. I shall try harder. I was actually making a light hearted joke (c/f the chinese box) What 'shifty little bump'? I was actually agreeing with him that my original phrasing was inaccurate and clarifying what I had meant earlier. I don't think there is a problem with his answer nor my subsequent reply. Again, I see no problem here. I am just pointing out that I know QM isn't magic - but it is wierd. I have been studying QM for since 1991, and think you are wrong to dismiss this as a one-off. It's a development of QM and quantum computing, many years in the making. I don't think there were claims against me. Just comments. We're having a discussion. OK, but I think you're scolding the wrong person, or at least, I'm not the only offender. I think maybe my reputation is too tarnished to carry on as I am being prejudged and misinterpreted. Maybe I should retire bombus and start afresh - but I'd rather not, I think I've been around for 4 years now... ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I was only joking actually. The joys of text message communication:-)

Yes. Fair enough, but that's how it's often described: Quantum computers have the potential for solving certain types of problems much faster than classical computers. Anyway, I suspect quantum computers will not be hindered by Gödel's theorem. I have just started reading Shadows of the mind, so will get back to you about that...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8113627.stm

My father (now deceased) worked in the middle east for a while in the 80's. He once told me that arabs have AK47's like westerners have golf clubs. [As an aside, he reckoned that the so-called 'soldiers in civilian clothes' who tried to defend Basra from the invading Brits in 2003 were probably veterans of the Iran/Iraq war as most looked well past 40 and all had AK47's - he called them BagDADS Army (maybe you gotta be a Brit to get that joke).] Anyway, I would bet that a relatively high proportion of Iranians do have an AK47 in the cupboard. Most of them probably support the government though. Also, there's no proof whatsoever that the Iranian elections were rigged in the first place, so the 'rebels' might be outnumbered anyway if it came to it. Personally, I think private ownership of guns is generally a bad idea for society. I think hunting rifles/shotguns are OK, so long as proper checks are made, but hand guns should be outlawed. Maybe the genie can't be put back into the bottle in the USA though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged But drugs only harm oneself - and most don't harm at all unless abused... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Now you're talking!

You are very wrong there. However, if you do know, maybe you should write a scientific paper on it. I'm sure the science world would love to know that you know exactly all there is to know about brain function. Paramecium function, including hunting out prey, without a single neuron, as do other single celled creatures. Neurones are not therefore the only things that can give an organism 'intent'. Try here for some ideas: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788080291~db=all Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Using sentient slaves might be seen as a flaw! No, its just that quantum computers can do many more calculations simultaneously - even solving problems without fully running programs! Using an optical-based quantum computer, a research team led by physicist Paul Kwiat has presented the first demonstration of "counterfactual computation," inferring information about an answer, even though the computer did not run. The researchers report their work in the Feb. 23 issue of Nature. "In a sense, it is the possibility that the algorithm could run which prevents the algorithm from running," Kwiat said. "That is at the heart of quantum interrogation schemes, and to my mind, quantum mechanics doesn't get any more mysterious than this." See here:http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html

the points you raise are difficult to answer (certainly for me) but our understanding of how the brain works is still unknown at the deepest level - I doubt it's just down to neurones firing - so I'll keep my mind open on brains being quantum systems. However, the idea that a purely mechanical system could become conscious really intrigues me. How presposterous could we make the 'computer'? How about one made of wood and bricks, powered by steam with water doing the same job as electricity?

String theory is currently unfalsifiable. I'm bored of this conversation. It's going round in circles. Lets just wait and see shall we? I'm outta here. Thanks for the chat.

As i said [sigh] he may well be crank, but that's not the point! Is what he is saying about PT correct or not? Anyway. I have looked up where you got those extracts from, and it is from a text about the beliefs of ancient cultures, and the third extract plainly states 'according to theosophy...'. You are cynically misrepresenting his own beliefs there. However, his stance on AIDS plainly shows he's a crank... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are just plain rude. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So what? I made a mistake. It's not relevant to the discussion. That is not a strawman. why do you?: Are you aspergic? I would repeat what I said earlier, but you don't seem to understand the point. Look DH, just sod off if you can't be civil. I'm going to ignore you in this thread from now on.

No it's not, and Yes. Neurotransmitters are just one part of brain functioning. sure It was only an article I found somewhere, not a scientific paper. http://www.scribd.com/doc/14429946/Problem-with-Quantum-Mind-Theory Isn't good enough for what? No, but the brain has far more complex structures than superconducting material. I am just pointing out that temperature may not be such a factor as previously thought.

See the link above. This is an extract from another paper. I have not checked out the references yet: Maxwell (1974) stated that many earth-science papers were concerned with demonstrating that some particular feature or process may be explained by plate tectonics, but that such papers were of limited value in any unbiased assessment of the scientific validity of the hypothesis. Van Andel (1984) conceded that plate tectonics had serious flaws, and that the need for a growing number of ad hoc modifications cast doubt on its claim to be the ultimate unifying global theory. Lowman (1992a) argued that geology has largely become "a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts ... used as confidently as trigonometric functions" (p. 3). Lyttleton and Bondi (1992) held that the difficulties facing plate tectonics and the lack of study of alternative explanations for seemingly supportive evidence reduced the plausibility of the theory. Agreed. I was only pointing out that evidence of PTT does not generally disprove EET. But that will do on the subject. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't deliberately post strawmen. So long as I get nearer to the truth I'm fine with that. And I found this: Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick, deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence. Instead, 44% of trenches are empty of sediments. The rest do contain "accretionary wedges" along the landward slope, but smaller than expected. Accretionary wedges were expected to grow and uplift with time, but it is now known that some have subsided several kilometres. Moreover, the sediment in them is usually horizontally layered and undisturbed, and is mainly derived from the land rather than being offscraped oceanic sediment. Jesus! What is wrong with you? I am not taking anything as truth. I am investigating the claims to see if they stand up to scrutiny. I'd suggest you read the information my link above leads to before making any more posts. Try this: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm and I don't want to hear 'he's a crank'. I don't care if he's a chocolate sponge, it's whether what he is saying is correct/incorrect or an accurate acount/misrepresentation of data that's the issue. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK. Thanks.

I have not deliberately posted strawmen here. I never deliberately post strawmen. Much of what you have said sounds like opinion to me, and again, passing it all off as new age rubbish. I'm sure a lot of it is, but a lot of it isn't. Opinion OK proving a negative is difficult - I was expecting a link to a paper solving all the issues. However, I have posted enough to show that it is being debated by respected, serious physicists working in respected institutions, and there is plenty more out there. We'll have to agree to differ I think.

I am not interested in the bits that support PTT - I have no problem with these. It's the bits that don't fit that are the problem. However, EET would have pretty much the same evidence as PTT - even a degree of subduction according to some - which makes the holes in PTT (if they exist) more problematic. However, I can't stand closed mindedness on either side. However, I suspect many of the opponents to PTT do not believe in EET either Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I couldn't give two hoots if it is a strawman. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of the claims. Chill out for god's sake! Lack of scraped off sediment at subduction zones. Where is it? It was predicted - and should occur, but doesn't. Some theories - such as evolution by natural selection - are pretty damn watertight. So is relativity. PTT does not have anywhere near the same logical authority or evidence.

Structures in the brain are classical objects, but thinking is done by chucking electrons around the brain. One could say that the brain is a structure to contain and 'herd' electrons, i.e., it is the electrons that are the important bit rather than the meat itself. I suspect that Quantum effects come into play. Some proposals have been put forward, but this is debated, and Max Tegmark thinks the brain too warm and wet: If our neurons have anything at all to do with our thinking, if all these electrical firings correspond in any way to our thought patterns, we are not quantum computers," says Tegmark. The problem is that the matter inside our skulls is warm and ever-changing on an atomic scale, an environment that dooms any nascent quantum computation before it can affect our thought patterns. For quantum effects to become important, the brain would have to be a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero. Hameroff is unconvinced. "It's obvious that thermal decoherence is going to be a problem, but I think biology has ways around it," he says. "Water molecules in the brain tissue, for instance, might keep tubulin coherent by shielding the microtubules from their environment. In back-of-the-envelope calculations, I made up those 13 orders of magnitude pretty easily." Also, superconductors are functioning at ever higher temperatures, so nature could have got there already via millions of years of evolution. We can but wait and see.

You are clearly being led by your incredulity. That is not scientific! I suggest you look further into PTT. It's not as solid as many will have you believe. That's not to say it's not still true though.

I see. So I ask a question and then have to justify the asking of a question by providing proof that my question is valid, while no proof needs to be provided to back up the proposal that there is no debate on the matter. You are not on the scientific high ground here. You have provided no proof so far. Also, only a proportion of physicists actually work on QM anyway, so there are not going to be that many debating the issue. And when emminent physicists like Roger Penrose are n the debate I hardly think it's fair to say that the debate is about a 'A few papers (self-referencing at that) appearing in obscure journals' It's a debate that is still occurring and I have shown this to be true. Shall we carry on discussing retrocausality. I do not consider there is much left to discuss here. I think you are splitting hairs based on semantics here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I did but maybe not directly. Your proposal is one interpretation, and there are others. If it was as simple as you put it why would it ever have caused such a fuss? I don't think the evidence backs up that proposal, but I shall investigate it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Some of the interpretations of QM may well not be falsifiable, but some of the data cannot be explained by current science. Some interpretations of QM do provide a possible solution. However, if the proposals are not falsifiable directly, there may be experiments that could be devised that might imply them to be true. The giaia theory is a difficult one to falsify, but the Daisy World hypothetical model swayed a lot of doubters as it's hard to argue with. I think we may well be talking about people who are pushing the borders of science. Who do you mean? That's an inaccurate analogy. Data is being produced that cannot be explained by current 'mainstream' physics, but could be explained using some interpretations of QM. It is, but some doubt that consciousness actually influences the experiment. Actually they have done. As far as I understand, the measuring mode being the key issue does not correlate with all the evidence. I will look further into it.

Maybe... but due to interactions at the sub-atomic level. I suspect it's actually something to do with quantum mechanics. I think quantum computers could become sentient, but not the ones we use today. (I know QM is involved with 'normal' cpu's but I mean qbits rather than bits) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Very true. a current theme I keep noticing recently is how much scientific investigation is influenced by incredulity - including my own. I have been reading a brief history of time again, and research on black holes was delayed because certain influential scientists didn't like the idea and encouraged others not to bother with research. Trendy ideas get funding for research, unfashionable or unpopular ideas do not. Scientific study is often not that scientific. It is a little worrying.

Good map. There are no subduction zones around antartica then apart from the eastern edge of the pacific oceanic plate?

It's hard for me to accept that a purely mechanical device could become conscious.

It was stated, and not all scientists agree on this! It would seem that it is among some - as my posts have suggested. Can you please direct me to a source that shows all physicists agree that interaction is the same as observation. I'd suggest that both hypothesis can exist without each other, but perhaps one can support another. Anyway, I don't wish to discuss telepathy here.

where are the subduction zones?

My first post merely questioned the assertion that interaction does not include observation - or to be more precise, that observation=interaction. I am claiming that that has not been proven and that it is still being debated, as some QM experts do claim that interaction does indeed have to involve conscious observation. (Note:The other side of the argument is just as bereft of evidence). I am not necessarily making that claim myself, but have been offering proof that the issue has not been resolved. (However, I have probably been subject to a little 'mission creep' and have at times been defending the 'conscious observation is required' argument.) I actually don't know what the 'truth' is - no-one does. Also. re the paper on telepathy. This is what I mean by incredulity influencing scientific study. Are you suggesting that you would not even consider the possibility of telepathy? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's debateable:-) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh, well I've lost then. Obviously.

Cperkinson, Your life may not be predetermined. Quantum Theory gives (some of) us a way out of that. I do not believe free will to be an illusion. I think it's real. No need to contemplate suicide - contemplate quantum consciousness instead (although be warned, you'll probably be deemed a crank - but at least you'll be a happy crank!)