Conjoined Twins

[Craig Weinberg]

Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby and Brittany:

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm

You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison but they can disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to mean that they are similar machines and therefore are able to generate the same functions simultaneously, but then how can they voluntarily disagree? To me, this shows how fundamentally different subjectivity and will is from computation, information, or even physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical, it's because physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via intention through time, rather than extension across space. The words they say are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even though Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in a more subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo is not meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words with her ears and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of what is being said at nearly the same time.

I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality of arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is processing similar data with similar mechanisms, but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are speaking more or less 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that they could get out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five seconds later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing. Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could not evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this.

[Richard Ruquist]

May I suggest that entangled BECs in their brains may allow for more
or less instant communication of thoughts, but that one or the other
may be able to disentangle and have independent thoughts, or have
independent thoughts that are instantly communicated and disagreed
with. Just a shot in the dark.

Richard

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TGERtHlMkLIJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Stephen P. King]

On 10/8/2012 12:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> May I suggest that entangled BECs in their brains may allow for more
> or less instant communication of thoughts, but that one or the other
> may be able to disentangle and have independent thoughts, or have
> independent thoughts that are instantly communicated and disagreed
> with. Just a shot in the dark.

Hi Richard,

You are considered what Stuart Hammeroff has been investigating. ;-)

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 12:58:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:

May I suggest that entangled BECs in their brains may allow for more
or less instant communication of thoughts, but that one or the other
may be able to disentangle and have independent thoughts, or have
independent thoughts that are instantly communicated and disagreed
with. Just a shot in the dark. 

Richard

If that were the case though, then why have a brain? Even twins who are not conjoined speak in unison sometimes. The mind would be much safer entangling it's BECs in the skull or the knee cap, or in the stratosphere somewhere.

Craig

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

10/9/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

 

 

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-10-08, 12:02:27

Subject: Conjoined Twins

--

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

 

The subjective aspect (Firstness), some of which apparently each twin has, is

not shareable, only descriptions of it (Thirdness) are shareable. 

 

Firstness.

What is shareable is Thirdness. What cannot be shared is Firstness.

Thirdness is the description of

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/9/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-10-08, 12:02:27
Subject: Conjoined Twins

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:32:19 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 

 

The subjective aspect (Firstness), some of which apparently each twin has, is

not shareable, only descriptions of it (Thirdness) are shareable. 

Maybe not in these twins, but in these other, brain conjoined twins, Firstness IS SHARED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI  (start at 5:50  if you want to skip the human interest stuff)

Proof.

Craig

 

Firstness.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Oct 2012, at 18:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined
> twins Abby and Brittany:
>
> http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm
>
> You can see that although they do not share the same brain they
> clearly share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison
> but they can disagree with each other. This can be interpreted to
> mean that they are similar machines and therefore are able to
> generate the same functions simultaneously, but then how can they
> voluntarily disagree? To me, this shows how fundamentally different
> subjectivity and will is from computation, information, or even
> physics. Even though I think subjectivity is physical, it's because
> physics is subjective, and the way that happens is via intention
> through time, rather than extension across space. The words they say
> are not being transmitted from inside one skull to another, even
> though Brittany seems to be echoing Abby in the sense that she is in
> a more subservient role in expressing what they are saying, the echo
> is not meaningfully delayed - she is not listening to Abby's words
> with her ears and then imitating her, she is feeling the meaning of
> what is being said at nearly the same time.
>
> I think that Bruno would say that this illustrates the nonlocality
> of arithmetic as each person is a universal machine who is
> processing similar data with similar mechanisms,

For non locality, you need "same" instead of "similar".

Of course you can say that the "if-then-else subroutine", defined in
some functional way, act no locally in many different brains and
computers, but that does not give rise to the non-locality we can
"observe" from being in the UD, or in Everett universal wave.

> but I see real-time Quorum Mechanics. They are speaking more or less
> 'in concert'. Were they machines, I would expect that they could get
> out of synch. One could just start repeating the other five seconds
> later, or they could lapse into an infinite regress of echoing.
> Surely the circuitry of such a rare instrument would not and could
> not evolve rock solid error corrective anticipation for this.

I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons.

I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral synchronization that we would expect from two single individual persons.

Then there are the brain conjoined twins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI  (skip to 5:23 if you want)

That situation is a bit different, but notice the similarities between kids who literally share some part of their brain and ones who share nothing from the neck up.

Craig

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons.
>
> I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral
> synchronization that we would expect from two single individual
> persons.
>
> Then there are the brain conjoined twins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI
> (skip to 5:23 if you want)
>
> That situation is a bit different, but notice the similarities
> between kids who literally share some part of their brain and ones
> who share nothing from the neck up.

I follow those twins, and others. It is very interesting. They are
cute too. Once they mesh the brain, observable facts are hard to
interpret.

It is know also that some weird synchronization (like marrying at
the same time a partner looking similar) might occur between distant
twins, but it is hard also to verify or give credits to all accounts,
or even just to interpret them, as it might mean that a larger part of
the behavior is "programmed" in the genome (like here the taste for
the type of woman/boy).

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:27:14 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons.
>
> I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral  
> synchronization that we would expect from two single individual  
> persons.
>
> Then there are the brain conjoined twins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI
>   (skip to 5:23 if you want)
>
> That situation is a bit different, but notice the similarities  
> between kids who literally share some part of their brain and ones  
> who share nothing from the neck up.

I follow those twins, and others. It is very interesting. They are  
cute too. Once they mesh the brain, observable facts are hard to  
interpret.

Yes, it's sad that the sensational freakishness of the topic makes it sort of taboo. It would like to see some really extensive interviews with them when they grow up a bit. I can certainly appreciate the desire to be left alone or to be accepted into social normalcy, but to me their situation is so much more interesting than normalcy, I wish that they (these twins and Abby and Brittany too) would talk about their conscious experience in detail.
 

  It is know also that some weird synchronization (like marrying at  
the same time a partner looking similar) might occur between distant  
twins,

Right, twins separated at birth sometimes find obscure idiopathic behaviors they share. 

but it is hard also to verify or give credits to all accounts,  
or even just to interpret them, as it might mean that a larger part of  
the behavior is "programmed" in the genome (like here the taste for  
the type of woman/boy).

This is where I feel like we should be seeing the limitation of the genetic assumption of identity. Surely a gene cannot cause an event like marrying to be synchronized. What if you found the gene and changed it the night before the wedding? It doesn't really make sense that two isolated mechanisms in different people can cause an event outside of themselves to happen. To me this supports my view that time, sense, and energy are really the same thing and space, matter, and information are their shadows.

Craig

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/