Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:24 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:.....

All Penrose said human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. ......


The problem is that even when we make Quantum Computers and they will be conscious then it means we have no ethereal soul like Hameroff is claiming. We are then just machines made of matter and nothing more.



And Penrose is simply wrong in that statement. Just because we don't have a typical (i.e. Turning Machine) computer capable of duplicating the connections and processes of the brain does not mean it is impossible. In fact a number of the researchers involved in the human brain project have successfully emulated parts of brains and there is more to come.

Penrose and Hameroff are just wack-jobs and need to plug their pie-holes.....particularly about topics they have no clue about.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:26 pm

donnie wrote:Hameroff is a hippy Penrose needed a mechanism. hameroff microtubules. Penrose has never said humans have a quantum soul. All he is saying that is consciousness is non-algorithmic.



You don't listen very well do you. And you clearly are much less than informed about Penrose's past, beliefs, previous claims and motivations. I suggest you educate yourself.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:31 pm

Let me say it again Penrose is an idiot when it comes to brain, mind and consciousness. He is not trained in it, he has not studied it, he is just spouting off in an area he is completely clueless about and it all started with The Emperors New Mind which was one of the stupidest books I've ever read.

Donnie you really need to read and get up to speed on this topic if you expect to discuss it.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:44 pm

kennyc wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:.....

All Penrose said human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. ......


The problem is that even when we make Quantum Computers and they will be conscious then it means we have no ethereal soul like Hameroff is claiming. We are then just machines made of matter and nothing more.



And Penrose is simply wrong in that statement. Just because we don't have a typical (i.e. Turning Machine) computer capable of duplicating the connections and processes of the brain does not mean it is impossible. In fact a number of the researchers involved in the human brain project have successfully emulated parts of brains and there is more to come.

Penrose and Hameroff are just wack-jobs and need to plug their pie-holes.....particularly about topics they have no clue about.

Calling sir roger penrose a wake job is just rude. Just because you disagree. As for saying I have no clue WHF. As for stuart hameroff hypothesis about the Planck scale I think its out there. He is right about anesthesia use is weak London forces. Its fact.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:47 pm

donnie wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:.....

All Penrose said human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. ......


The problem is that even when we make Quantum Computers and they will be conscious then it means we have no ethereal soul like Hameroff is claiming. We are then just machines made of matter and nothing more.



And Penrose is simply wrong in that statement. Just because we don't have a typical (i.e. Turning Machine) computer capable of duplicating the connections and processes of the brain does not mean it is impossible. In fact a number of the researchers involved in the human brain project have successfully emulated parts of brains and there is more to come.

Penrose and Hameroff are just wack-jobs and need to plug their pie-holes.....particularly about topics they have no clue about.

Calling sir roger penrose a wake job is just rude. Just because you disagree. As for saying I have no clue WHF. As for stuart hameroff hypothesis about the Planck scale I think its out there. He is right about anesthesia use is weak London forces. Its fact.



Wrong. He's the one that need to keep his nose out of things he knows nothing about...and perhaps you should as well because you are far from informed about this topic.

This is not even about 'agreement' - the entire neuroscience community thinks he's a wack-job as well and as well they should. He's an idiot making claims in an area he knows nothing about.

Would you let him do brain surgery on YOU?
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:51 pm

kennyc wrote:
donnie wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:.....

All Penrose said human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. ......


The problem is that even when we make Quantum Computers and they will be conscious then it means we have no ethereal soul like Hameroff is claiming. We are then just machines made of matter and nothing more.



And Penrose is simply wrong in that statement. Just because we don't have a typical (i.e. Turning Machine) computer capable of duplicating the connections and processes of the brain does not mean it is impossible. In fact a number of the researchers involved in the human brain project have successfully emulated parts of brains and there is more to come.

Penrose and Hameroff are just wack-jobs and need to plug their pie-holes.....particularly about topics they have no clue about.

Calling sir roger penrose a wake job is just rude. Just because you disagree. As for saying I have no clue WHF. As for stuart hameroff hypothesis about the Planck scale I think its out there. He is right about anesthesia use is weak London forces. Its fact.



Wrong. He's the one that need to keep his nose out of things he knows nothing about...and perhaps you should as well because you are far from informed about this topic.

This is not even about 'agreement' - the entire neuroscience community thinks he's a wack-job as well and as well they should. He's an idiot making claims in an area he knows nothing about.

Would you let him do brain surgery on YOU?

So tell me how anesthesia works.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:11 pm

donnie wrote:So tell me how anesthesia works.


Can you tell me how anesthesia works donnie? I think not.

The only nut who claims London forces are behind anesthesia is Hameroff according to a quick google search with his Quantum woo:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pen ... hobic.html

http://anesth.medicine.arizona.edu/syst ... failed.pdf

This is what I found by a quick google search. You need to try harder to convince people here just by making claims donnie.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:20 pm

kennyc wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:.....

All Penrose said human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. ......


The problem is that even when we make Quantum Computers and they will be conscious then it means we have no ethereal soul like Hameroff is claiming. We are then just machines made of matter and nothing more.



And Penrose is simply wrong in that statement. Just because we don't have a typical (i.e. Turning Machine) computer capable of duplicating the connections and processes of the brain does not mean it is impossible. In fact a number of the researchers involved in the human brain project have successfully emulated parts of brains and there is more to come.

Penrose and Hameroff are just wack-jobs and need to plug their pie-holes.....particularly about topics they have no clue about.



The turning test is disputed. However there are already programs who can fool us that we are talking with a human being so I think we are getting pretty close to A.I. even before Penrose. Penrose and believers in dualism will never be persuaded that we created a robot with consciousness even when we create one. Here is the program:

ELIZA and PARRY[edit]

In 1966, Joseph Weizenbaum created a program which appeared to pass the Turing test. The program, known as ELIZA, worked by examining a user's typed comments for keywords. If a keyword is found, a rule that transforms the user's comments is applied, and the resulting sentence is returned. If a keyword is not found, ELIZA responds either with a generic riposte or by repeating one of the earlier comments.[25] In addition, Weizenbaum developed ELIZA to replicate the behaviour of a Rogerian psychotherapist, allowing ELIZA to be "free to assume the pose of knowing almost nothing of the real world."[26] With these techniques, Weizenbaum's program was able to fool some people into believing that they were talking to a real person, with some subjects being "very hard to convince that ELIZA [...] is not human."[26] Thus, ELIZA is claimed by some to be one of the programs (perhaps the first) able to pass the Turing Test,[26][27] even though this view is highly contentious (see below).

Kenneth Colby created PARRY in 1972, a program described as "ELIZA with attitude".[28] It attempted to model the behaviour of a paranoid schizophrenic, using a similar (if more advanced) approach to that employed by Weizenbaum. In order to validate the work, PARRY was tested in the early 1970s using a variation of the Turing Test. A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running PARRY through teleprinters. Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs.[29] The psychiatrists were able to make the correct identification only 48 percent of the time — a figure consistent with random guessing.[30]

In the 21st century, versions of these programs (now known as "chatterbots") continue to fool people. "CyberLover", a malware program, preys on Internet users by convincing them to "reveal information about their identities or to lead them to visit a web site that will deliver malicious content to their computers".[31] The program has emerged as a "Valentine-risk" flirting with people "seeking relationships online in order to collect their personal data".[32]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_tes ... _and_PARRY

ELIZA passed the turning test to some people. So we see it is possible.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:26 pm


User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:36 pm

donnie wrote:http://psychcentral.com/lib/brain-effects-of-general-anesthesia/0008431 I think we should look at ketamine more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-hole


Where are there London Forces mentioned in those both texts??
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:36 pm

donnie wrote:
kennyc wrote:.....

Would you let him do brain surgery on YOU?

So tell me how anesthesia works.


Irrelevant. Answer my question would you let Penrose do brain surgery on YOU?
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:37 pm

Mark? Mark? is that you??
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:37 pm

Ok if we can build a classical computer With A.I what I mean self aware not programme. Then you win. So what dose it mean to be self aware.? Sorry this is long http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:39 pm

donnie wrote:Ok if we can build a classical computer With A.I what I mean self aware not programme. Then you win. So what dose it mean to be self aware.? Sorry this is long http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html


If we even build a Quantum Computer I win because when we can create a Quantum Computer Penrose has lost.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:41 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:http://psychcentral.com/lib/brain-effects-of-general-anesthesia/0008431 I think we should look at ketamine more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-hole


Where are there London Forces mentioned in those both texts??

There some guy from England studying ketamine get back to you but what the study said as there had
hallucinations there brain waves went down or something and should be the other way. Any way I link it

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:44 pm

kennyc wrote:Mark? Mark? is that you??


I am having the same feeling because those two links have nothing to do what he said. A quote from those sites:

"K-hole" is a slang term for the subjective state of dissociation from the body commonly experienced after sufficiently high doses of the dissociative anesthetic ketamine (75-125 mg IM). This state may mimic the phenomenology of catatonic schizophrenia,[1] out-of-body experiences (OBEs) or near-death experiences (NDEs),[2] and is often accompanied by feelings of extreme derealization, depersonalization and disorientation, as well as temporary memory loss and vivid hallucinations.


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-hole

Impressions of the K-hole often include profound distortions in or complete loss of bodily awareness, sensations of floating or falling, euphoria, and total loss of time perception. Users may experience worlds or dimensions that are indescribable, all the while being completely unaware of or having lost their individual identities or their sense of an extant and external world.[3]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-hole

No London Forces there.

Emery Brown, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital believes, “How anesthetic drugs induce and maintain the behavioral states of general anesthesia is an important question in medicine and neuroscience.”

His team investigated general anesthesia versus sleep and coma. They carried out a review of anesthesia studies from a range of areas, including neuroscience and sleep medicine.

“It may sound nitpicky, but we need to speak precisely about what this state is,” Brown says. “This paper is an attempt to start at square one and get clear definitions in place.”

He explained, “We started by stating the specific physiological states that comprise general anesthesia, specifically unconsciousness, amnesia, lack of pain perception and lack of movement, and then we looked at how they are comparable to and different from sleep and coma.”

The team compared the physical signs and EEG patterns of these states. They found significant differences, with only the deepest stages of sleep being similar to the lightest stages of anesthesia. General anesthesia essentially is a “reversible coma.”

“While natural sleep normally cycles through predictable phases, general anesthesia involves the patient being taken to and maintained at the phase most appropriate to the procedure,” they report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The phases of general anesthesia at which surgery is performed are most similar to states of coma.”

Brown says, “People have hesitated to compare general anesthesia to coma because the term sounds so harsh, but it really has to be that profound or how could you operate on someone? The key difference is this is a coma that is controlled by the anesthesiologist and from which patients will recover quickly and safely.”

“This information is essential to our ability to further understanding of general anesthesia.”


Taken from: http://psychcentral.com/lib/brain-effec ... ia/0008431

There is some evidence that people in coma can dream and even hear. This counts also for vegetative patients and thanks to this is Penrose wrong along with Hameroff who is also wrong.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:44 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Ok if we can build a classical computer With A.I what I mean self aware not programme. Then you win. So what dose it mean to be self aware.? Sorry this is long http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html


If we even build a Quantum Computer I win because when we can create a Quantum Computer Penrose has lost.

Penrose wins if we create a Quantum Computer with consciousness. And the classical computer fails

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:47 pm

donnie wrote:Ok if we can build a classical computer With A.I what I mean self aware not programme. Then you win. So what dose it mean to be self aware.? Sorry this is long http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html



Not only long but idiotic and written by someone without a clue as to what mind, brain, and consciousness is.

Not the responses:

Nicholas Humphrey: Roger Penrose gets full marks for effort. It was a good try. He thinks brains are capable of leaps of intuition which are not conceivably possible for a machine. He thinks human minds can see the truth or falsity of statements that are in principle noncomputable. I'm not impressed by his examples. Of course, people can do very clever and creative things that we can't yet begin to understand — nobody has a clue how Shakespeare could write his plays or Picasso paint his paintings or Hawking do his mathematics — but I don't think there's any real parallel between these astonishing achievements and noncomputable "Gödel sentences."

Penrose has got an interesting theory, but it's a theory in search of something to apply it to. I just don't think we need quite such a radical new theory to explain human intelligence and creativity.

Francisco Varela: Roger Penrose is the perfect example of physicists acquiring an authority to speak on just about everything and anything. Between Turing, as the ideal of computation, and quantum mechanics there's something missing — a body. For Penrose, the body has disappeared. I find it amazing that because he is a famous physicist and mathematician, and probably very rightly so, he can come up with this stuff. I would say there are no clothes on Penrose.

There is an arrogance that comes with being a physicist — particularly a mathematical physicist — which also shows up in some of the crowd at the Santa Fe Institute, including Gell Mann. Biologists, and the public at large, share a kind of physics envy.

If I have a chance to have a discussion with Penrose, I'll press him to give me just a shred of evidence that quantum processes are relevant to describing the brain. There is none. This is the same thing that happens, say, with the psychokinesis people, or the UFO people. There are shreds of things here and there, but nothing you can put on the table and bite into.

On the other hand, there are huge amounts of evidence from neurobiology and neuropsychology to make the body a very interesting set of possible interpretations which need not be computational. Penrose discovered that the mind is not computational. I agree. Then he makes this funny leap. He says, "Then it must be quantum." That's where he loses me.

W. Daniel Hillis: It's annoying that you get somebody who's good at mathematics who uses his mathematical credibility to pontificate on something he's speculating about. Penrose tells a good story, but he tells a fundamentally wrong story. Penrose has committed the classical mistake of putting humans at the center of the universe. His argument is essentially that he can't imagine how the mind could be as complicated as it is without having some magic elixir brought in from some new principle of physics, so therefore it must involve that. It's a failure of Penrose's imagination.


Daniel C. Dennett: Roger Penrose...I'm so glad he exists, because, as someone once said of Voltaire, if he hadn't existed, God would have had to invent him. Much the same is true of Penrose; he lucidly plays a role that needs playing, just so everyone can see it's dead wrong.

Marvin Minsky: In effect, it seems to me, Penrose simply assumes from the start precisely what he purports to prove.

Roger Schank: Roger Penrose wrote an outrageous book on AI. It's very sad that people write books about subjects they don't understand. If you're a famous physicist, you think you have the right to comment on things that you actually don't get.


So see Donnie, it's not just me. I suggest you go learn something before you post again.
I'm done with you.....if Shen wants to continue he's welcome to, but you really aren't worth anyone's time.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:47 pm

donnie wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:http://psychcentral.com/lib/brain-effects-of-general-anesthesia/0008431 I think we should look at ketamine more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-hole


Where are there London Forces mentioned in those both texts??

There some guy from England studying ketamine get back to you but what the study said as there had
hallucinations there brain waves went down or something and should be the other way. Any way I link it


You do not have to. This is old and does not prove anything. It just proves that people can have strong hallucinations when their brain goes down. Nothing more or less. Even Dr. Steven Novella has written about it:

These results strongly imply that the subjective effects of psychedelic drugs are caused by decreased activity and connectivity in the brain’s key connector hubs, enabling a state of unconstrained cognition.

Unconstrained cognition is another way of saying disinhibition. The concept is simple – there are many brain areas all interacting and processing information. This allows for complex information processing but also slows down the whole process – slows down cognition. That is the price we pay for complexity. If, however, we inhibit one part of the brain we lose some functionality, but the other parts of the brain are unconstrained and free to process information and function more quickly.

The psilocybin study is a perfect example of this. The drug is inhibiting the reality testing parts of the brain, causing a psychadelic experience that is disinhibited and intense. This is similar to really intense dreams. You may have noticed that sometimes in dreams emotions and experiences can be more intense than anything experienced while awake. This is due to a decrease in brain activity in certain parts of the brain compared to the full waking state.

Kastrup seems to be completely unaware of the critical concept of disinhibition and therefore completely misinterprets the significance of the neuroscience research.

His next point is equally naive. He claims that near death experiences, in which people have intense experiences without brain activity, is further evidence of a lack of correlation between brain states and mental states. I have already dealt with this claim here. Briefly, there is no evidence that people are having experiences while their brain is not functioning. What we do have are reports of memories that could have formed days or even weeks later, during the recovery period following a near death experience. At the very least one has to admit that NDE claims are controversial. They are certainly not established scientific facts that can be used as a premise to counter the materialist hypothesis of brain and mind.


Taken from: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... lism-frey/

Which means that even when the brain is going down on activity you can have high hallucinations not only the opposite.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:48 pm

donnie wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Ok if we can build a classical computer With A.I what I mean self aware not programme. Then you win. So what dose it mean to be self aware.? Sorry this is long http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html


If we even build a Quantum Computer I win because when we can create a Quantum Computer Penrose has lost.

Penrose wins if we create a Quantum Computer with consciousness. And the classical computer fails


Nope he looses because he claims there is a soul. Oh boy you did not read anything about Penrose did you?
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:51 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Ok if we can build a classical computer With A.I what I mean self aware not programme. Then you win. So what dose it mean to be self aware.? Sorry this is long http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html


If we even build a Quantum Computer I win because when we can create a Quantum Computer Penrose has lost.

Penrose wins if we create a Quantum Computer with consciousness. And the classical computer fails


Nope he looses because he claims there is a soul. Oh boy you did not read anything about Penrose did you?



No he hasn't read anything nor does he understand it, or maybe he is familiar.....my conclusion is that based on his behavior -- shifting the discussion, quoting {!#%@} he doesn't understand and responding in the way he does is that he is nothing but a troll and may even be the same Markb6 idiot. He's got the same behavior/responses with the exception that he has jumped into an existing thread rather than starting one.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:18 pm

Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:38 pm

donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?
Is
conscious

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:55 pm

donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?


Same old, same old. What is your point? You want to claim that consciousness is not in the same place and is somewhere else and can be at two places at once??
Last edited by Shen1986 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:56 pm

donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?
Is
conscious


Do you actually understand what you post? To me this is just random talk and you seem not to understand what you are talking about.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:57 pm

Donnie what if plants could learn? Ha that would destroy the Orch-OR model:

Is this plant INTELLIGENT? Tropical fern found to 'learn and remember' despite having no brain
Scientists from the University of Western Australia found Mimosa pudica plants can learn and remember as well as some animals
Fern responds to touch and curls up to protect itself from predators
But eventually 'learned' not to curl up when rain drops landed on it
Researchers aren't certain why the plants are able to do so, but think it might be down to a calcium-based signally network in their cells
Study suggests experience teaches plants to learn details to survive

By Sarah Griffiths

PUBLISHED: 13:06 GMT, 17 January 2014 | UPDATED: 17:49 GMT, 17 January 2014

Marvellous memories are often attributed to elephants, but scientists have discovered that plants can also learn and remember – even though they do not have a brain.

Scientists claim fern-like plants that respond to touch have learned that water droplets are not harmful and remember the finding weeks afterwards.

Their research suggests that experience teaches plants to learn details to survive and could lead to scientists viewing flora in a new way.




Scientists claim fern-like plants Mimosa pundica (pictured) that respond to touch, learned that water droplets are not harmful in an experiment and remember the lesson for weeks afterwards
WHY DOES MIMOSA PUDICA CURL UP WHEN TOUCHED?

Mimosa pudica is also called the sensitive plant, sleepy plant and the touch-me-not.

Its leaves fold inwards and droop when touched or shaken to protect it from predators and re-open minutes later.

The species is native to South America and Central America.

It is known for its rapid plant movement as the foliage closes during darkness and reopens in light.

The leaves also close when touched, warmed, blown-upon or shaken - known as seismonastic movements.

The movement occurs when specific regions of cells lose turgor pressure, which is the force that is applied onto the cell wall by water within cells.

When the plant is disturbed, specific regions on the stems are stimulated to release chemicals including potassium ions which force water out of the cells and the water diffuses out of the cells, producing a loss of cell pressure and cell collapse.

This differential stiffness between regions of cells, leads to the closing of the leaflets.


The researchers studied Mimosa pudica, which folds inwards when touched to protect itself from predators.

The University of Western Australia study, which also involved Professor Stefano Mancuso at the University of Florence in Italy, found the action is not simply a reflex.


Taken from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... brain.html
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:24 pm

donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?
Is
conscious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:31 pm

donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?
Is
conscious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ


Donnie you really think I do not know what a double slit experiment is?? For your information I know what it is. Your own responses do not make sense and do you think that posting a youtube video makes more sense now to this whole quantum woo?? It does not.

Next time Donnie please try to first think what you want to talk then just trolling here.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:36 pm

Shen1986 wrote:Donnie what if plants could learn? Ha that would destroy the Orch-OR model:

Is this plant INTELLIGENT? Tropical fern found to 'learn and remember' despite having no brain
Scientists from the University of Western Australia found Mimosa pudica plants can learn and remember as well as some animals
Fern responds to touch and curls up to protect itself from predators
But eventually 'learned' not to curl up when rain drops landed on it
Researchers aren't certain why the plants are able to do so, but think it might be down to a calcium-based signally network in their cells
Study suggests experience teaches plants to learn details to survive

By Sarah Griffiths

PUBLISHED: 13:06 GMT, 17 January 2014 | UPDATED: 17:49 GMT, 17 January 2014

Marvellous memories are often attributed to elephants, but scientists have discovered that plants can also learn and remember – even though they do not have a brain.

Scientists claim fern-like plants that respond to touch have learned that water droplets are not harmful and remember the finding weeks afterwards.

Their research suggests that experience teaches plants to learn details to survive and could lead to scientists viewing flora in a new way.




Scientists claim fern-like plants Mimosa pundica (pictured) that respond to touch, learned that water droplets are not harmful in an experiment and remember the lesson for weeks afterwards
WHY DOES MIMOSA PUDICA CURL UP WHEN TOUCHED?

Mimosa pudica is also called the sensitive plant, sleepy plant and the touch-me-not.

Its leaves fold inwards and droop when touched or shaken to protect it from predators and re-open minutes later.

The species is native to South America and Central America.

It is known for its rapid plant movement as the foliage closes during darkness and reopens in light.

The leaves also close when touched, warmed, blown-upon or shaken - known as seismonastic movements.

The movement occurs when specific regions of cells lose turgor pressure, which is the force that is applied onto the cell wall by water within cells.

When the plant is disturbed, specific regions on the stems are stimulated to release chemicals including potassium ions which force water out of the cells and the water diffuses out of the cells, producing a loss of cell pressure and cell collapse.

This differential stiffness between regions of cells, leads to the closing of the leaflets.


The researchers studied Mimosa pudica, which folds inwards when touched to protect itself from predators.

The University of Western Australia study, which also involved Professor Stefano Mancuso at the University of Florence in Italy, found the action is not simply a reflex.


Taken from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... brain.html

plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed,

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2r9Ztb9G2 plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed,

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2r9Ztb9G2
So maybe memory not stored in the brain or could be instinct.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:42 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?
Is
conscious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ


Donnie you really think I do not know what a double slit experiment is?? For your information I know what it is. Your own responses do not make sense and do you think that posting a youtube video makes more sense now to this whole quantum woo?? It does not.

Next time Donnie please try to first think what you want to talk then just trolling here.

So what dose the double slit experiment tell us. The observer decides. How dose a small part of matter know.? Its being measured,? It acts one way and when measured a other.?
Last edited by donnie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:45 pm

donnie wrote:plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed,Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2r9Ztb9G2 plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed,Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2r9Ztb9G2 So maybe memory not stored in the brain or could be instinct.


Tea on keyboard...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also double posting my link is really a good idea. :roll:
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:45 pm

donnie wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose said consciousness is some how connected to the quantum collapse http://www.highexistence.com/this-will- ... xperiment/ The mere act of observation can completely change the outcome of an event! So a particle can be in two places at once and when measured it The observer can decide whether or not to put detectors into the interfering path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment the observer is what.?
Is
conscious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ


Donnie you really think I do not know what a double slit experiment is?? For your information I know what it is. Your own responses do not make sense and do you think that posting a youtube video makes more sense now to this whole quantum woo?? It does not.

Next time Donnie please try to first think what you want to talk then just trolling here.

So what dose the double slit experiment tell us. The observer decides. How dose a small part of matter know.? Its being measured,? It acts one way and when measured a other.?


Thanks for showing that you know nothing about Quantum mechanics and that you are just a woo believer..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:46 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed,Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2r9Ztb9G2 plants were able to remember what had been learned for several weeks, even after environmental conditions had changed,Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z2r9Ztb9G2 So maybe memory not stored in the brain or could be instinct.


Tea on keyboard...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also double posting my link is really a good idea. :roll:

Answer the question

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:48 pm

So what dose the double slit experiment tell us. The observer decides. How dose a small part of matter know.? Its being measured,? It acts one way and when measured a other when not

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:50 pm

donnie wrote:So what dose the double slit experiment tell us. The observer decides. How dose a small part of matter know.? Its being measured,? It acts one way and when measured a other.?


Like the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the double-slit experiment is often used to highlight the differences and similarities between the various interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Copenhagen interpretation[edit] This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)


The Copenhagen interpretation is a consensus among some of the pioneers in the field of quantum mechanics that it is undesirable to posit anything that goes beyond the mathematical formulae and the kinds of physical apparatus and reactions that enable us to gain some knowledge of what goes on at the atomic scale. One of the mathematical constructs that enables experimenters to predict very accurately certain experimental results is sometimes called a probability wave. In its mathematical form it is analogous to the description of a physical wave, but its "crests" and "troughs" indicate levels of probability for the occurrence of certain phenomena (e.g., a spark of light at a certain point on a detector screen) that can be observed in the macro world of ordinary human experience.

The probability "wave" can be said to "pass through space" because the probability values that one can compute from its mathematical representation are dependent on time. One cannot speak of the location of any particle such as a photon between the time it is emitted and the time it is detected simply because in order to say that something is located somewhere at a certain time one has to detect it. The requirement for the eventual appearance of an interference pattern is that particles be emitted, and that there be a screen with at least two distinct paths for the particle to take from the emitter to the detection screen. Experiments observe nothing whatsoever between the time of emission of the particle and its arrival at the detection screen. If a ray tracing is then made as if a light wave (as understood in classical physics) is wide enough to take both paths, then that ray tracing will accurately predict the appearance of maxima and minima on the detector screen when many particles pass through the apparatus and gradually "paint" the expected interference pattern.
Path-integral formulation[edit]

One of an infinite number of equally likely paths used in the Feynman path integral. (see also: Wiener process.)

The Copenhagen interpretation is similar to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics provided by Feynman. The path integral formulation replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system, with a sum over all possible trajectories. The trajectories are added together by using functional integration.

Each path is considered equally likely, and thus contributes the same amount. However, the phase of this contribution at any given point along the path is determined by the action along the path:


All these contributions are then added together, and the magnitude of the final result is squared, to get the probability distribution for the position of a particle:


As is always the case when calculating probability, the results must then be normalized by imposing:


To summarize, the probability distribution of the outcome is the normalized square of the norm of the superposition, over all paths from the point of origin to the final point, of waves propagating proportionally to the action along each path. The differences in the cumulative action along the different paths (and thus the relative phases of the contributions) produces the interference pattern observed by the double-slit experiment. Feynman stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we can measure.
Relational interpretation[edit]

According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo Rovelli,[45] observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. In the case of an electron, if it is initially "observed" at a particular slit, then the observer–particle (photon–electron) interaction includes information about the electron's position. This partially constrains the particle's eventual location at the screen. If it is "observed" (measured with a photon) not at a particular slit but rather at the screen, then there is no "which path" information as part of the interaction, so the electron's "observed" position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function. This makes the resulting pattern on the screen the same as if each individual electron had passed through both slits. It has also been suggested that space and distance themselves are relational, and that an electron can appear to be in "two places at once"—for example, at both slits—because its spatial relations to particular points on the screen remain identical from both slit locations.[46]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Read and cry..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:51 pm

donnie wrote:So what dose the double slit experiment tell us. The observer decides. How dose a small part of matter know.? Its being measured,? It acts one way and when measured a other when not


In your world the observer is god according to what you write. So consciousness is god for you?
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:55 pm

Here you have another take:

Quantum Mechanics Without the Bohr(ing) Stuff

Left: Physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1933, exhibiting the fashion taste scientists could get away with even then.

Quantum mechanics is notorious for tangling people’s minds up. Part of the problem lies in the complicated mathematical formulation: in a typical American physics curriculum, a serious study of quantum mechanics shows up in the third or fourth year and has a large number of prerequisites in both the physics and math departments. Famous physicists such as Richard Feynman have gone so far as to say that nobody actually understands quantum mechanics, and a lot of professors when they teach the subject will reassure their students that it works, even if the interpretation eludes them.

Many (perhaps even most) physicists treat the whole theory as a black box, something that provides very good predictions, but that will lead to madness if you try to figure out why it works the way it does. However, it’s worth our while to go over the structure of quantum mechanics to see why the latest experiment is potentially very important.

The central equation of quantum mechanics is a wave equation, known as the Schrödinger equation (named for its discoverer, Erwin Schrödinger, known for the infamous cat). As with any other mathematical equation relating to physics, you put in different parameters to characterize a particular physical situation and solve it; in this case solutions are known as wave functions. A given wave function represents the state of a system, which may be one or more photons, electrons, atoms, or any number of other entities. The state itself describes the probability that a system has a particular position, momentum, spin, etc.

Outside of quantum mechanics, statistics and probabilities are usually most useful when describing large numbers of things: what is the likelihood that a particular hand in poker turns up, or how many people will vote for a candidate for president based on demographic information. A single person votes in a given way with no uncertainty (the year 2000 presidential election aside), so the statistics you see in poll data are based on a large population. The wave function assigns statistical information to a individual system: what the possible outcomes of a measurement will be, even if the experiment is performed on a single photon.

One aspect is uncertainty. All experiments have uncertainty attached to them, simply because no equipment is perfect. Where quantum mechanics differs is by saying that even with perfect equipment, there will be a fundamental limit to how well a measurement can be performed. That uncertainty is directly connected to the wave-like character of matter and light: if you have a water wave traveling across the ocean, what is the precise position of the wave? How fast is it moving?

The answer isn’t so clear, simply because the wave takes up a finite amount of space and may overlap with other waves in such a way that separating out which wave is which is too hard; also, different parts of the wave may be moving at different rates. Therefore, the position and momentum are best described by an average and a spread of values around that average, which carries the name uncertainty – not in the sense of doubt but in the sense of indeterminacy. There is an inherent limit to our ability to describe these physical quantities, with no need for soul-searching on the part of scientists.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us what the minimum uncertainty for quantum waves must be: the smaller the uncertainty in position, the larger the uncertainty in momentum – and vice versa. Returning to the double-slit experiment, the wavelength (the size of the wave, in other words) depends on momentum, so the entire interference pattern is in effect a measurement of momentum.

However, that means determination of which slit the photon passed through – which is a measurement of position – has an increased uncertainty. Although the graininess of the interference pattern indicates where an individual photon lands, determining what path it took to get to that spot is not generally possible.

So What Does It All Mean, Anyway?

Enter the experiment by Kocsis et al.: by reducing the resolution of the measurements, the experimenters increased the uncertainty in the momentum, allowing a better chance at determining the trajectories of an ensemble of photons. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle still stands, in other words, and is an essential part of this experiment (whatever some headlines may say).

The difficulty of this measurement should not be overstated! After all, quantum mechanics has been around for nearly 100 years and based on the controversies surrounding the Copenhagen interpretation, had it been easy, surely someone would have attempted it by now.

The experiment involves producing individual photons from a quantum dot and measuring their momentum indirectly through the polarization of each photon. Because polarization is correlated with momentum, but not exactly the same quantity, measurement of one doesn’t strongly affect the other, preserving the state of the system fairly well. The final position of the photon is measured using a charge-coupled device (CCD), similar to what you find in ordinary digital cameras or telescope imaging devices.

By repeating the experiment for a large number of individual photons and moving the apparatus to measure polarization at various points along the trajectories, the researchers were able to reconstruct the paths not of the individual photons but of the complete ensemble of all photons – yet due to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, information about the individual photons within the system can still be inferred.

One possible interpretation of the experiment is in line with the pilot wave model, formulated by Louis de Broglie with later additions by David Bohm. In this view, the wave function describes a statistical distribution that says what physical properties the point-like particle is likely to have – while the particles themselves may follow precise trajectories, even if those are very difficult to track. This certainly is consistent with what we see in detectors, although one might ask whether the pilot waves themselves can ever be directly observed – and if they can’t, whether they can be said to be "real".

Obviously a detailed discussion of that idea is too much for one post, so I won’t try. However, if the complete trajectory of a photon can be observed in some way and its interference pattern still exists, it indicates that indeed a view of quantum physics consistent with a realists’ perspective is possible (the kicking of rocks being completely optional).

Has the Copenhagen interpretation fallen? Has the pilot wave interpretation been vindicated? The cautious scientific answer must be "not yet". After all, there is nothing in this experiment that isn’t completely compatible with the mathematical predictions of quantum mechanics, so any valid interpretation – including the Copenhagen interpretation – will describe its results.

However, measurements such as this make it harder to say smugly that photons don’t follow any particular trajectory and that it’s unreasonable to expect them to. I for one look forward to more experiments along these lines.


Taken from: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... ally-show/
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:04 pm

Not sure if consciousness is god. Carlo Rovelli should win a nobel prize. What has not.? Maybe he still has not addressed the measurement problem. Just a thin hypothesis

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:42 pm

kennyc wrote:Let me say it again Penrose is an idiot when it comes to brain, mind and consciousness. He is not trained in it, he has not studied it, he is just spouting off in an area he is completely clueless about and it all started with The Emperors New Mind which was one of the stupidest books I've ever read.

Listening to Penrose on the subject of the brain is a classic case of argumentum ab auctoritate or appeal to authority. He's a brilliant mathematician and his contributions to physics are noteable but that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about regarding conciousness.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:42 am

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:http://psychcentral.com/lib/brain-effects-of-general-anesthesia/0008431 I think we should look at ketamine more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-hole


Where are there London Forces mentioned in those both texts??

There some guy from England studying ketamine get back to you but what the study said as there had
hallucinations there brain waves went down or something and should be the other way. Any way I link it


You do not have to. This is old and does not prove anything. It just proves that people can have strong hallucinations when their brain goes down. Nothing more or less. Even Dr. Steven Novella has written about it:

These results strongly imply that the subjective effects of psychedelic drugs are caused by decreased activity and connectivity in the brain’s key connector hubs, enabling a state of unconstrained cognition.

Unconstrained cognition is another way of saying disinhibition. The concept is simple – there are many brain areas all interacting and processing information. This allows for complex information processing but also slows down the whole process – slows down cognition. That is the price we pay for complexity. If, however, we inhibit one part of the brain we lose some functionality, but the other parts of the brain are unconstrained and free to process information and function more quickly.

The psilocybin study is a perfect example of this. The drug is inhibiting the reality testing parts of the brain, causing a psychadelic experience that is disinhibited and intense. This is similar to really intense dreams. You may have noticed that sometimes in dreams emotions and experiences can be more intense than anything experienced while awake. This is due to a decrease in brain activity in certain parts of the brain compared to the full waking state.

Kastrup seems to be completely unaware of the critical concept of disinhibition and therefore completely misinterprets the significance of the neuroscience research.

His next point is equally naive. He claims that near death experiences, in which people have intense experiences without brain activity, is further evidence of a lack of correlation between brain states and mental states. I have already dealt with this claim here. Briefly, there is no evidence that people are having experiences while their brain is not functioning. What we do have are reports of memories that could have formed days or even weeks later, during the recovery period following a near death experience. At the very least one has to admit that NDE claims are controversial. They are certainly not established scientific facts that can be used as a premise to counter the materialist hypothesis of brain and mind.


Taken from: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... lism-frey/

Which means that even when the brain is going down on activity you can have high hallucinations not only the opposite.

:D