South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

May 21, 2018, 20:44:12 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

 (Read 22204 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2009, 20:54:05 PM »

Also, considering how closely scientific and technological progress has been tied to digital computing over the last few decades it might simply be a lack of interest or focus.
Not likely. Read what Mefi wrote. Ask yourself what's special about it that the digital revolution happened so quickly and  comprehensively. Even in things like photography and music that are as analog as analog can be. Hint: it has a lot to do with convenience & versatility.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2009, 21:23:41 PM »

Also, considering how closely scientific and technological progress has been tied to digital computing over the last few decades it might simply be a lack of interest or focus.
Not likely. Read what Mefi wrote. Ask yourself what's special about it that the digital revolution happened so quickly and  comprehensively. Even in things like photography and music that are as analog as analog can be. Hint: it has a lot to do with convenience & versatility.

I agree completely. For storing and transmitting information, digital is far more efficient. But, it is more efficient because it actually contains less information. An analogue photograph or recording contains far more information than your eyes or ears are capable of processing.

Hey, cool, this is post number 42 Grin
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 21:46:55 PM by Peter Grant » Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2009, 22:00:47 PM »

I agree completely. For storing and transmitting information, digital is far more efficient. But, it is more efficient because it actually contains less information. An analogue photograph or recording contains far more information than your eyes or ears are capable of processing.
Uh-uh, not necessarily. You can rasterize a photo at a resolution higher than the grain size of the photographic film it was taken on (or of your eyes' photoreceptor spacing) and apply a complex interpolation scheme in between. Then the digital pic will contain more info. You can sample a sound clip at time intervals shorter than the peak-to-peak of the highest resonant frequency of the recording device it was made on (or that of your eardrums) and again interpolate between. Then the digital sound will contain more info. In any case "information" is a digital concept formally. Ask Claude Shannon who came up with its definition. Again, why should that be?

Hey, cool, this is post number 42 Grin
Your real name Arthur Dent maybe? Wink
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2009, 22:45:26 PM »

Uh-uh, not necessarily. You can rasterize a photo at a resolution higher than the grain size of the photographic film it was taken on (or of your eyes' photoreceptor spacing) and apply a complex interpolation scheme in between. Then the digital pic will contain more info.


Is this like spreading the pixels out and filling in the spaces between with the averages of the adjacent pixels?

You can sample a sound clip at time intervals shorter than the peak-to-peak of the highest resonant frequency of the recording device it was made on (or that of your eardrums) and again interpolate between. Then the digital sound will contain more info. In any case "information" is a digital concept formally. Ask Claude Shannon who came up with its definition. Again, why should that be?


Well, I think it's because our nervous systems sense information that way.

Hey, cool, this is post number 42 Grin
Your real name Arthur Dent maybe? Wink


Hey, a fellow Adams fan!  Smiley
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2009, 07:44:21 AM »

Agreed but it takes longer. That is why this quantum consciousness was proposed originally, wasn't it?
Not really.  The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QM implies that nothing is definite until it is observed by a conscious entity.  This led Schrödinger to propose his dead-alive cat thought experiment in order to illustrate the apparent absurdity of this conception.  Based thereon, Roger Penrose much later hypothesised that quantum wave function collapse (reduction) – the technical term for finding a particle or group of coordinated particles in a definite state – is missing some essential ingredient that is perhaps also instrumental in manifestations of consciousness.  Penrose conjectures that this is to be found in a proper quantum gravity formulation (still conspicuously lacking), and calls it “objective reduction” (OR), as opposed to the “subjective reduction” done by conscious observers.  A neuroscientist, Hameroff, proposes that OR on a (relatively speaking) large coordinated scale within neural microtubules accounts for consciousness.  That’s the picture painted in very broad strokes.

Look who has finally got it... Do you think it is testable?

What do you think these guys are proposing and doing here?
Information processing mechanisms in microtubules at physiological temperature: Model predictions for experimental tests.
Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror
Comments on Proposed Gravitational Modifications of Schrodinger Dynamics and their Experimental Implications

Concerning my understanding of quantum mechanics: It seems logical to me that if everything is based on quantum mechanics, then the entire universe is essentially one big quantum computer. This isn't a belief I hold, I just don't know what else to think. What is it I am missing?

I don't blame you. You might like the Simulation Argument. What kind of simulation hypothesis though?
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2009, 08:18:58 AM »

I don't blame you. You might like the Simulation Argument. What kind of simulation hypothesis though?


The simulation argument linked to seems pretty unlikely to me although it makes for great sci-fi. However, one could argue that the "reality" we experience is just a simulation or approximation of reality generated in our own minds.
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2009, 08:33:49 AM »

Is this like spreading the pixels out and filling in the spaces between with the averages of the adjacent pixels?
Something like that. Now you have the analog image plus the interpolation stuff. Thus more info than you started with. You can make the interpolation as complicated as you like.

Well, I think it's because our nervous systems sense information that way.
What, we sense information as digital? I doubt it. Shannon went digital for reasons of formal rigor, precision and convenience.

Look who has finally got it
"Finally", eh? Yup, your own genius knows no bounds. That's clear to anyone who reads your asinine drivel.

The Simulation Argument is antiscientific BS - except if you're a cretinist or IDiot.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2009, 09:02:53 AM »

Is this like spreading the pixels out and filling in the spaces between with the averages of the adjacent pixels?
Something like that. Now you have the analog image plus the interpolation stuff. Thus more info than you started with. You can make the interpolation as complicated as you like.

This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.

Well, I think it's because our nervous systems sense information that way.
What, we sense information as digital? I doubt it. Shannon went digital for reasons of formal rigor, precision and convenience.

Even our individual nerve cells communicate with each other digitally via tiny packets of chemicals. Where communication is concerned, digital is definitely the way to go.
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2009, 21:11:14 PM »

This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.
Brrraaaap! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Look up how information is quantified before shooting from the hip like that. In one form or another, you've added the info to actually do the interpolation. Its amount is not zero or less.

Even our individual nerve cells communicate with each other digitally via tiny packets of chemicals.
How does that make sensory apprehension of information digital?

You argue just like a creationist, you know that? Not the content but the method. It's like intellectual hopscotch. All over the place. Damn annoying.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2009, 22:41:49 PM »

This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.
Brrraaaap! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Look up how information is quantified before shooting from the hip like that. In one form or another, you've added the info to actually do the interpolation. Its amount is not zero or less.


Of what use is a digital definition of information in comparing analogue and digital complexity?

Try doing that repeatedly to an image of writing which is too small or pixelated to read. I doubt it will become much clearer. Compare this to the old analogue slide and projector.

Even our individual nerve cells communicate with each other digitally via tiny packets of chemicals.
How does that make sensory apprehension of information digital?


It has already been digitized before it gets to your brain.

You argue just like a creationist, you know that? Not the content but the method. It's like intellectual hopscotch. All over the place. Damn annoying.


I don't really see what I am doing as arguing. Why do you?
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2009, 07:44:00 AM »

Of what use is a digital definition of information in comparing analogue and digital complexity?
Lekker man. First you yourself effuse broadly and ignorantly about the quantity of information in digital vs. analog. When the error is pointed out, you just sidestep the inconvenience instead of acknowledging it. That's just too preciously creationist of you.

It has already been digitized before it gets to your brain.
That so? There's no evidence to suggest that these "chemical packets" you speak of are like binary digits or strings. But then you obviously know something no neuroscientist I've ever read does.

I don't really see what I am doing as arguing. Why do you?
Um, let's see now. Prolly 'cos a great many of your replies, usually the least informed ones, are unmistakably geared at undermining what the other says. Maybe it's just me though.

But whatever. I'm done here.
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2009, 11:27:01 AM »

Of what use is a digital definition of information in comparing analogue and digital complexity?
Lekker man. First you yourself effuse broadly and ignorantly about the quantity of information in digital vs. analog. When the error is pointed out, you just sidestep the inconvenience instead of acknowledging it. That's just too preciously creationist of you.



OK, I will attempt to explain in terms of Information Theory. Information in this sense is quantified by randomness. The more random the data, the harder it is to compress. Any deterministic algorithm run on the data will not increase it's randomness. For instance, unzipping a file does not increase the quantity of information stored in it.

BTW did you try the experiment I suggested?


It has already been digitized before it gets to your brain.
That so? There's no evidence to suggest that these "chemical packets" you speak of are like binary digits or strings. But then you obviously know something no neuroscientist I've ever read does.


Neurons either fire, or they don't. How can this be analogue communication?

I don't really see what I am doing as arguing. Why do you?
Um, let's see now. Prolly 'cos a great many of your replies, usually the least informed ones, are unmistakably geared at undermining what the other says. Maybe it's just me though.


Sorry, I thought the tone of my responses so far was alternately questioning and explanatory.

But whatever. I'm done here.



Really? I don't think you've done all that much yet.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2009, 16:18:07 PM by Peter Grant » Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2009, 14:28:16 PM »

This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.
Brrraaaap! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Look up how information is quantified before shooting from the hip like that. In one form or another, you've added the info to actually do the interpolation. Its amount is not zero or less.
At the risk of moving further off topic... I agree with Peter, the information gained by interpolation might not be zero, but it's not very useful either. You will have more values and pixels, but not more detail. Their are various interpolation methods of course, some will be more useful that others.

As for neurons being digital - I will stay away from something I know nothing about Wink
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2009, 14:41:51 PM »

This is more like guessing or estimating what the missing info would have been. It will result in a larger file size but not really more information.
Brrraaaap! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. Look up how information is quantified before shooting from the hip like that. In one form or another, you've added the info to actually do the interpolation. Its amount is not zero or less.
At the risk of moving further off topic... I agree with Peter, the information gained by interpolation might not be zero, but it's not very useful either. You will have more values and pixels, but not more detail. Their are various interpolation methods of course, some will be more useful that others.


Thanks bluegrey!  It's nice to be understood. Grin

As for neurons being digital - I will stay away from something I know nothing about Wink


I'm not suggesting that neurons themselves are digital, only that they communicate with each other that way.
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2009, 21:36:41 PM »

I agree with Peter, the information gained by interpolation might not be zero, but it's not very useful either. You will have more values and pixels, but not more detail. Their are various interpolation methods of course, some will be more useful that others.
The issue isn't usefulness. If you think so, please define "usefulness" in relation to information. The issue is the amount of information regardless of one's tastes. If you add an algorithm to interpolate between samples, you have added information whether it's useful or not.

ETA: Thanks Petey, you're a real prince.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.991 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 15, 2018, 23:02:45 PM
Privacy Policy