The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

[Horizon68]

Hello..

Read this:


I think human consciousness comes from quantum physics world..

Read this very interesting webpage to understand more:

The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramd

[Paavo Helde]

Of course there is a link between mind and quantum, the brain consists
of atoms which are best described by quantum physics at low level. The
same holds for a piece of rock, for example.

+1 for the article to mention decoherence and explaining this causes the
quantum effects to vanish at room temperatures 1E16 times faster than it
takes for a neuron to trigger a single signal.

The article also contains repeated remarks in the form "But there is no
evidence that such a thing is remotely feasible."

So I think you are mistaken about the article, it is not about any
mystical link, it is about lunatics seeking such links. Basically all
their mambo-jambo comes down to "I do not understand this, therefore
quantum!". It remains unclear why not "therefore spaghetti monster!" or
"therefore 7 dwarfs!".

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 05.10.2018 08:51, Paavo Helde wrote:
> On 5.10.2018 0:50, Horizon68 wrote:
>> Hello..
>>
>> Read this:
>>
>>
>> I think human consciousness comes from quantum physics world..
>>
>> Read this very interesting webpage to understand more:
>>
>> The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics
>>
>> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics
>>
>
> Of course there is a link between mind and quantum, the brain consists
> of atoms which are best described by quantum physics at low level. The
> same holds for a piece of rock, for example.
>
> +1 for the article to mention decoherence and explaining this causes the
> quantum effects to vanish at room temperatures 1E16 times faster than it
> takes for a neuron to trigger a single signal.
>
> The article also contains repeated remarks in the form "But there is no
> evidence that such a thing is remotely feasible."
>
> So I think you are mistaken about the article, it is not about any
> mystical link, it is about lunatics seeking such links.

I agree about the lunatics. However, do note that they include Roger
Penrose, chair of the math department (whatever) at Oxford University.
He collaborated with Stephen Hawking on the results Stephen is most
famous for, about black holes.

I'd go even further and call the idea of black holes as places with
unusual time and space axis directions, just sheer lunacy: failing to
understand that a breakdown in math results means the math or the model
is wrong, not reality is. Which implies... That good old Stephen Hawking
was misled into insanity by Roger Penrose?

Hm. Anyway, I once wrote a little ironical piece about Roger Penrose's
insane views on AI. <url:
https://alfps.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/an-ironclad-proof-that-you-are-smarter-than-roger-penrose/>
:)

> Basically all
> their mambo-jambo comes down to "I do not understand this, therefore
> quantum!". It remains unclear why not "therefore spaghetti monster!" or
> "therefore 7 dwarfs!".

Yes.


Cheers!,

- Alf (offtopic mode, before first coffee!)

[James Kuyper]

On 10/05/2018 05:02 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
...

> I agree about the lunatics. However, do note that they include Roger
> Penrose, chair of the math department (whatever) at Oxford University.
> He collaborated with Stephen Hawking on the results Stephen is most
> famous for, about black holes.
>
> I'd go even further and call the idea of black holes as places with
> unusual time and space axis directions, just sheer lunacy: failing to
> understand that a breakdown in math results means the math or the model
> is wrong, not reality is. Which implies... That good old Stephen Hawking
> was misled into insanity by Roger Penrose?

The singularity at the center of a black hole is unambiguously a place
where gravitational fields get so strong that our understanding of
physics breaks down, because we've never been able to conduct
experiments in fields that strong. That's acknowledged by most of the
authorities in the field.
However, that time and space axes undergo distortion due to strong
gravitational fields is a fundamental aspect of the General theory of
Relativity (GR). Physicists have gone out of their way to locate
evidence that distinguishes GR from any proposed alternative, and the
evidence they've collected fits GR better than any meaningfully
different theory (at least one of the alternatives that has been
proposed turned out to be mathematically equivalent to GR, just
described in a different way). If this be lunacy, then I see nothing
wrong with being this kind of a lunatic.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

Roger Penrose is a lunatic for his belief that strong AI is impossible
without some quantum-level help, as he's written two or maybe three
books about, and his ability to simply not see any inconsistency in his
attempted mathematical proofs of that. They're trivial errors, not
recognized or /seen/ by the chair of the Oxford math department. But
then he is in good company of otherwise brilliant mathematicians or
thinkers, such Kurt Gödel, who tried to mathemathically prove the
existence of the Christian religion's god in 1941. Not to mention
Descartes. However, according to Pascal Descartes was only religious on
three occasions, namely when he tried to gain social favor by proving
the existence of that same god, less rigorously than Gödel later on.

Now regarding willy-nilly /directions/ of the time axis within a black
hole, you know, grandfather paradox. Bang. That's it: the theory is
provably not applicable to this case.

The insanity lies in believing that nature is that perverse. It isn't.
Our models of nature can be, because they're idealizations,
simplifications, that necessarily gloss over some details lest they be
as complex as nature itself – some of which details, become very
significant in the extreme regime of a black hole.


Cheers!,

- Alf (still in off-topic mode, or mood :-) )


Notes:
¹ <url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof>

[Melzzzzz]

As they are trivial care to show them?
Before Penrose I heard that strong AI is impossible because there is no
algoritm to make algorithms... from my mathematical logic proffesor.
That was in 1987 before Penrose wrote book...

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Alf P. Steinbach]

I already linked to ¹something I blogged in 2010, up-thread. That was
just one of his attempted proofs. I don't have his books here, and I'm
not sure I still have the first book -- as I recall someone borrowed it
and didn't return it. But I recall the errors were (1) myriad, and (2)
mostly trivial. It's amazing what a religious-like belief can do.

> Before Penrose I heard that strong AI is impossible because there is no
> algoritm to make algorithms... from my mathematical logic proffesor.
> That was in 1987 before Penrose wrote book...

Yes, he was not the first.

There were a bunch of philosophers very attracted by the notion of
adding mathematical rigor to their arguments. But they mainly used math
as an impressive-looking /notation/ to express their handwaiving
arguments in. Penrose differed by actually trying to do things
mathematically, but as with a proof of a perpetuum mobile machine you
don't need to even look at the details to know it's wrong, and the
problem (for his sanity) is that he didn't draw that conclusion.


Cheers!,

- Alf

¹
https://alfps.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/an-ironclad-proof-that-you-are-smarter-than-roger-penrose/

[Melzzzzz]

Problem is that algorithm is finite set of steps. You can't program
creativity.

>
>
> Cheers!,
>
> - Alf
>
> ¹
> https://alfps.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/an-ironclad-proof-that-you-are-smarter-than-roger-penrose/

[Öö Tiib]

That is trivial fallacy. One of the oldest programming languages is Lisp
that does not make much difference between code and data. Now look around
us ... world is full of data. For all practical purposes it is infinite.
Train that data into program and it perhaps acquires creativity in the
process. ;)
https://tmrwedition.com/2017/02/06/artificial-intelligence-is-already-a-better-artist-than-you-are/

[Melzzzzz]

It is not trivial. My professor started with proof that there is
algorithm for proofing valid logic formulae. Result is that there isn't
one. Then he derived that algorithm for making algorithms does not
exists...
Your example is trivial fallacy, since it talks about something else,
unrelated to the subject.
I hope we will alive in 20 years and talk about this then.

[Öö Tiib]

I meant there is data. Explanations that explain data and fit with
other data are theories. Rarely there is just one theory but more
often there are several that contradict with each other and
sometimes there is data that is not explained by any theory.

From contradicting theories pick what seems simplest. Decisions can
be made in the domain of knowledge by applying that theory (and
heuristics derived from it).

When theory is missing then accept ignorance. When decision is needed
in that domain of knowledge then throw dice or apply theory from some
other domain of knowledge.

Accept that most theories can be never proven but may be falsified by
observations made in the future, so carve nothing into stone besides
abstract mathematics.

> Then he derived that algorithm for making algorithms does not
> exists...

Why? Every theory can be implemented as algorithm and also throwing
dice can be implemented as algorithm.

> Your example is trivial fallacy, since it talks about something else,
> unrelated to the subject.

I do not understand. You said there are no creativity so I gave example.

> I hope we will alive in 20 years and talk about this then.

Oh, there likely will be opportunity to talk about this every year and
several times.

What is thinking? I believe that thinking is capability to form and to
build and to fit and to apply theories. To propose puzzles within domain
of knowledge that are tricky to solve and to find heuristics that
simplify solving those.
What is intuition? It is capability to apply theory (or its heuristics)
to some neighboring but unfamiliar domain of knowledge.
What is creativity? It is to do same with distant or unrelated domain of knowledge without direct need.