How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

32 views
Skip to first unread message

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 11, 2019, 4:31:19 PM5/11/19
to Everything List
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 11, 2019, 6:20:56 PM5/11/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 5/11/2019 1:31 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

Tell me what book I'm thinking of and I'll tell you how explain.  However, I do forsee your failure (as does my laptop).

Brent

In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d80475a5-0885-4cee-b536-7d7b7fbc18d3%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 11, 2019, 6:45:41 PM5/11/19
to Everything List


On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?

I doubt telepathy, but I do have a low-level precognition thought experiment handy:

In the typical EPR experiment setup, particle A goes one way, and particle B goes another way, to detector-A and detector-B respectively.

Now particles A and B are "entangled" (quantum-mechanically) , so that detector-B settings will stochastically influence what detector-A detects (and vice versa).

Now suppose detector-A is placed in a person's brain (not far away) in such a way that particle A (via detector-A) influences a neuron or two, but detector-B is light years (traveling distance) away. Can detector-B settings made years in the future influence what the person's neurons do in the present?

@philipthrift
 

Telmo Menezes

unread,
May 11, 2019, 6:52:24 PM5/11/19
to Everything List


On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 21:31, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?

Even assuming that telepathy and precognition are real phenomena, your argument still doesn't work because computations are also non-local. The same computation can be performed wherever, whenever.

Telmo.

Telmo Menezes

unread,
May 11, 2019, 6:54:41 PM5/11/19
to Everything List


On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 23:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:


On 5/11/2019 1:31 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

Tell me what book I'm thinking of and I'll tell you how explain.  However, I do forsee your failure (as does my laptop).

Very clever, but how do we know you are not an AI yourself?

Telmo.


Brent


In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Telmo Menezes

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:06:17 PM5/11/19
to 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:06:31 PM5/11/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Why make it impossible to perform by placing B far away?  The only relevant condition is whether Bob's setting was made space-like or time-like relative to Alice's.  And that kind of experiment has been done.  There is correlation per QM.

Brent

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:13:56 PM5/11/19
to Everything List


On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:06:17 PM UTC-5, telmo wrote:


On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 23:45, Philip Thrift wrote:


On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?

I doubt telepathy, but I do have a low-level precognition thought experiment handy:

In the typical EPR experiment setup, particle A goes one way, and particle B goes another way, to detector-A and detector-B respectively.

Now particles A and B are "entangled" (quantum-mechanically) , so that detector-B settings will stochastically influence what detector-A detects (and vice versa).

Now suppose detector-A is placed in a person's brain (not far away) in such a way that particle A (via detector-A) influences a neuron or two, but detector-B is light years (traveling distance) away. Can detector-B settings made years in the future influence what the person's neurons do in the present?


Telmo.



Another misguided and misleading theorem of (most, not all) physicists.

Doesn't apply because it has unjustified assumptions:


@philipthrift

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:16:21 PM5/11/19
to Everything List
Huh? I claimed it was possible to perform. Not impossible to perform.

@philipthrift 

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:18:44 PM5/11/19
to Everything List
My my, this list has started to be dominated by woo woo. There is no evidence for telepathy and the rest. Don't even bother replying to that, I will not further respond. This is all nonsense.

Can this list return to physics and science instead of pseudoscientific rubbish?

LC


On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:

John Clark

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:29:20 PM5/11/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 4:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

That's easily explained. Millions of people are unscientific enough to believe in the virgin birth, the infallibility of the pope, a picture of Jesus in a pizza , astrology and the the evils of vaccination; so it's not surprising that millions of people are unscientific enough to believe in telepathy and precognition. 

 John K Clark


 

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:48:54 PM5/11/19
to Everything List
Still, a little Feyerabend never hurts -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend 
 

@philipthrift
 

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 11, 2019, 7:52:36 PM5/11/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
You claim we can send Bob light years away to perform this experiment??  How?  

And why bother since Aspect has already done it with Bob selecting his setting space-like relative to Alice's?  The case in which Bob's setting is done in Alice's future light cone has been done too, but isn't very interesting since Alice could then influence Bob's setting.   Are you testing whether Alice's neurons will agree with Alice's instruments?  I don't see what you're getting at?

Brent


@philipthrift 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 11, 2019, 9:58:59 PM5/11/19
to Everything List



On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:


On 5/11/2019 4:16 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:06:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:


On 5/11/2019 3:45 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?

I doubt telepathy, but I do have a low-level precognition thought experiment handy:

In the typical EPR experiment setup, particle A goes one way, and particle B goes another way, to detector-A and detector-B respectively.

Now particles A and B are "entangled" (quantum-mechanically) , so that detector-B settings will stochastically influence what detector-A detects (and vice versa).

Now suppose detector-A is placed in a person's brain (not far away) in such a way that particle A (via detector-A) influences a neuron or two, but detector-B is light years (traveling distance) away. Can detector-B settings made years in the future influence what the person's neurons do in the present?

Why make it impossible to perform by placing B far away?  The only relevant condition is whether Bob's setting was made space-like or time-like relative to Alice's.  And that kind of experiment has been done.  There is correlation per QM.

Brent

 

Huh? I claimed it was possible to perform. Not impossible to perform.

You claim we can send Bob light years away to perform this experiment??  How?  

And why bother since Aspect has already done it with Bob selecting his setting space-like relative to Alice's?  The case in which Bob's setting is done in Alice's future light cone has been done too, but isn't very interesting since Alice could then influence Bob's setting.   Are you testing whether Alice's neurons will agree with Alice's instruments?  I don't see what you're getting at?

Brent




No. Bob could be someone on another planet (Bob will in the future of that other planet).


Or the idea already discussed, that the B particle could go out into space and heavy masses could bend its path around and it returns to Earth. In the future.

In any case, Bob is someone in the future, not the present.


 

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 11, 2019, 10:21:45 PM5/11/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
So suppose Alice, in her lab makes a setting and measures her entangled particle.   The she walks down the hall to Bob's lab and says, "Ok, Bob you are in the future of my setting and measurements.  Go ahead and do your thing."  What difference is there between that and Bob is on another planet?  He's in Alice's future light cone.

Brent

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 12, 2019, 2:08:50 AM5/12/19
to Everything List
Sorry dude, your ignorance doesn't stand for lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence. And I will not even bother showing it to a woo woo like you.

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 12, 2019, 2:31:32 AM5/12/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
We've already discussed Dean Radin and Greg Stone years ago.  They made fantastic claims of mental powers too, but like present company, when challlenged to put up or shut up they could do neither.

Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 12, 2019, 4:35:03 AM5/12/19
to Everything List
The EPR thought experiment, performed with electron–positron pairs. A source (center) sends particles toward two observers, electrons to Alice (left) and positrons to Bob (right), who can perform spin measurements.

The A particle travels 10 feet to the A-detector (Alice). 
The B particle travels 2.939e+14 miles* (50 light years) to the B-detector (Bob).


Bob could be on another planet. Or on Earth, if the B particle path could be bent around somehow via GR.

Bob may be 30 years old. He hasn't yet been born when Alice gets the A particle.

* calculation via Google


But with the phenomenon of "quantum entanglement" it occurs to me that some weak form of both telepathy and precognition could occur:

Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators

But how weak, TBD.

@philipthrift

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 12, 2019, 5:47:24 AM5/12/19
to Everything List
My Alice-Bob example is just an application of the "Ypiaria" example in

Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point

where Alice and Bob are in the role of the "interrogators".

@philipthrift

John Clark

unread,
May 12, 2019, 8:38:41 AM5/12/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Sorry dude, your ignorance doesn't stand for lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence. And I will not even bother showing it to a woo woo like you.

You are a stereotypical internet fool, a dime a dozen "expert" on consciousness. Paranormal research is a dead field that never advances, if this list existed in 1919 we'd be using the telegraph instead of the World Wide Web but other than that nothing would change, we'd be saying the same things because the evidence for the paranormal stuck in 1919 and it smells just as bad in 2019. In the last century we've weighed neutrinos, found the digital code for life, and detected gravitational waves, but not only have we failed to explain how paranormal stuff works we can't even show that there is something that needs explaining.

And you don't need a 10 billion dollar particle accelerator to investigate the existence (or lack of existence) of the paranormal. If these simple easy experiments that crackpots like you claim are valid then today the paranormal would not be controversial because its existence would have been proven to everyone's satisfaction way back in the time of Newton (maybe in the time of Archimedes) and today high school kids, perhaps grade school kids, would be repeating these classic 17'th century experiments proving the existence of the paranormal in their science fair projects. But they're not.  

John K Clark

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 12, 2019, 1:57:17 PM5/12/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
But my question is what is being tested in the experiment that isn't tested when Bob is just down the hall.  Are you concerned that the entanglement will "get old" as the photon travels 50 light years (even though it's proper time lapse is zero)?

Brent


* calculation via Google


But with the phenomenon of "quantum entanglement" it occurs to me that some weak form of both telepathy and precognition could occur:

Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators

But how weak, TBD.

@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 12, 2019, 2:26:18 PM5/12/19
to Everything List
I think I see what you mean.

If Alice is 10 feet away to the west and Bob is 100 feet away to the east, then the A particle gets to Alice just a little faster than the B particle gets to Bob (assuming the two particles are traveling at the same speed). 

So Alice reacts to Bob-in-the-future -- but in this case it's a very short time interval look-ahead!

@philipthrift

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 12, 2019, 3:55:39 PM5/12/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
And that experiment has been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

Brent

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 13, 2019, 2:01:16 AM5/13/19
to Everything List
Right. And a matter o scale 

       Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators

to get to telepathy and precognition. :)

@philipthrift

smitra

unread,
May 16, 2019, 7:17:15 PM5/16/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated
by our brains. Illusions such as optical illusions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTpvDTWurwg

auditory illusions such as McGurk effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

clearly demonstrates this. The virtual representation of the real world
isn't perfect; because we experience the former directly and can only
infer something about the latter indirectly, this means that we can
sometimes experience things that seem to violate the laws of physics.

Saibal

Brent Meeker

unread,
May 16, 2019, 9:00:03 PM5/16/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Which in turn means we do access the real world, otherwise we wouldn't
know that some impressions are illusions.  Whether we "live in it" or
not is then a matter of degree.  A degree inconsistent with a lot of
woo-woo.

Brent

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 17, 2019, 3:11:17 AM5/17/19
to Everything List


On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:17:15 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:

We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated
by our brains. Illusions such as optical illusions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTpvDTWurwg

auditory illusions such as McGurk effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

clearly demonstrates this. The virtual representation of the real world
isn't perfect; because we experience the former directly and can only
infer something about the latter indirectly, this means that we can
sometimes experience things that seem to violate the laws of physics.

Saibal

If  "We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated 
by our brains", where do those brains come from?

A brain is a big glob of neuronal and glial cells and chemicals and stuff. 

So all there is are brains? That's a weird picture, like from an SF movie.

@philipthrift

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 17, 2019, 3:41:17 AM5/17/19
to Everything List
Brain itself is a virtual construct generated by consciousness.

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 17, 2019, 3:45:35 AM5/17/19
to Everything List
See Donald Hoffman research. Evolution filters out truth. We don't live in a "physical" world. We live in an evolutionary world. The world of qualia we see around us is an evolutionary world constructed by consciousness in order to keep itself alive.

Bruce Kellett

unread,
May 17, 2019, 3:53:00 AM5/17/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:45 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
See Donald Hoffman research. Evolution filters out truth. We don't live in a "physical" world. We live in an evolutionary world. The world of qualia we see around us is an evolutionary world constructed by consciousness in order to keep itself alive.

Does a Boltzmann Brain need to gather nuts and seeds on the savanna to keep alive?

Bruce

Cosmin Visan

unread,
May 17, 2019, 3:57:17 AM5/17/19
to Everything List
Is not the nuts and seeds per se that keep a consciousness alive. Is what is behind their appearances. Whatever is there, we don't know. We don't know why consciousness needs to interact with other consciousnesses in order to maintain its existence in the current state.

Philip Thrift

unread,
May 17, 2019, 4:52:58 AM5/17/19
to Everything List

Something that might be of interest:

On the Quest of Defining Consciousness
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal @rlpvimal

How terms consciousness, qualia etc. relate:

(according to @rlpvimal)

@philipthrift

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 19, 2019, 11:50:02 AM5/19/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

> On 17 May 2019, at 02:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/11/2019 11:59 PM, smitra wrote:
>> On 11-05-2019 22:31, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>>> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of
>>> consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily
>>> explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can
>>> indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated
>>> consciousness can communicate. But in the case of local AIs, how can
>>> such phenomena have any chance of being explained ?
>>
>> We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated by our brains. Illusions such as optical illusions:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTpvDTWurwg
>>
>> auditory illusions such as McGurk effect:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
>>
>> clearly demonstrates this. The virtual representation of the real world isn't perfect; because we experience the former directly and can only infer something about the latter indirectly, this means that we can sometimes experience things that seem to violate the laws of physics.
>
> Which in turn means we do access the real world,

OK. Then the question is what is the nature of the real world. A God, Arithmetic, Matter, etc.


> otherwise we wouldn't know that some impressions are illusions. Whether we "live in it" or not is then a matter of degree. A degree inconsistent with a lot of woo-woo.

We necessarily live in it, or with it. But we cannot assert we know it. We can propose theories, and test them. For example, with the theory “mechanism”, we live in arithmetic, and the physical reality emerge “naturally” in the first person (hopefully the plural one) way.

Bruno



>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d0d20c2-1735-19a3-49e4-a8bcab98e733%40verizon.net.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 19, 2019, 11:52:36 AM5/19/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 17 May 2019, at 09:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Brain itself is a virtual construct generated by consciousness.

That is indeed a consequence of mechanism and its logic of self-reference. It is so precise that it can be compared with the observation. A brain, or any piece of matter is more like a map, a local memory focusing locally the “flux of consciousness” existing in the arithmetical reality/model.

Bruno



On Friday, 17 May 2019 02:17:15 UTC+3, smitra wrote:

We don't live in the real world, rather in the virtual world generated
by our brains.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages