tar

Edtharan, Not quite sure, but I think you are suggesting that qualia are not physical. (Considering that fact that I have never been able to tell the difference between deduction, induction, and abduction, I'll just duct, and let you parse it as you will.) There is something real that circles the Earth, which we (you and me) call the moon. It has properties that manifest themselves in my brain by neurons connecting and firing in various arrangements, patterns, and sequences. These quale are independent from the moon itself. Our experience of the firing in various arrangement, patterns, and sequences of our neurons, IS what we experience, what we feel, what we think, what state our brain is in. The moon is not in our brain, a representation, an analog of it, is all we can muster. Ever. You ever see the moon? Me too. How can you consider it real? All you have ever experienced is the state of your brain. My duct is that somewhere along the line, some other brain had the same quale, a similar brain state, and mentioned it to you. Your brain state and the other's brain state had a similar component that you both agreed on. "YOU SEE THAT ROUND THING TOO!" The premise of qualia, in my brain being similar to the qualia in your brain is so very obviously a requirement for us to communicate about anything, to call anything objectively real, is so real, so true I need not explain it. It is a given. I do not share such quale with rocks, or trucks, or computers. But I do share them with about 4billion living humans (and have evidence that dead humans had similar qualia while they were alive) and certain of my quale I share with other mammals as well. That the exact combination of qualia in my brain is different than the exact combination in your brain is also a sure thing. Your qualia are the sum total of all your experiences, everything you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, everything you have felt, everything you have thought about, everything you have read, everybody you have met, everywhere you have been, everything you have internalized and my experiences have been different, and our focuses have been different and physical differences in our brains are sure to allow one or the other of us to process faster, make different connection, recall more or whatever. But the differences do not negate the over abundance of similarities, when it comes to our ability to internalize the external world in roughly the same fashion. And considering the very close stuctural nature of our senses and our brains, there are many qualia we have, that we have almost exactly in the same manner. Stare at the center of some small colorful object for 35 seconds, and then look at a blank white sheet of paper or a white wall, and tell me the shape of the object does not appear, in complimentary color, to you, on the white field. Then I will consider we do not have similar qualia. Regards, TAR P.S. I am rather sure you will have the same experience as everybody else with working vision.

Edtharan, Sure the TED talk said that no neuron was the same, but it also talked about the ghostly electrical patterns that took shape in the columns, and the fact that we all share the same fabric. The talk talked about our internalizing the outside reality. It was actually backing up my conclusions, at every step. There was nothing he said that I disagreed with, and everything he said fit nicely with my explaination. I watched the talk before I read your response to my post, and was very surprised and confused that you thought you were using it to back up your position when it was backing up mine, to the letter. Is this your definition? I was talking about a quale AS the thought, the feeling is the thought, the thought is the feeling. There is no infinite regression involved. That our qualia, taken together, are an analogue of the universe is expressed in the TED talk. That's what I said in my proof. That you and I agree we each have an analogy of the same universe inside our separate skulls proves to me, that our qualia are very similar. The moon is the moon. To me and my qualia and to you and your qualia. How can we agree on all the facts about the moon if the analog of it, in our respective brains is not the same. And on my use of the scientific method. I use the facts that others have found, and talked about, that correspond to the facts that I have observed, as facts, as evidence. I am not making stuff up and then trying to fit the facts to it. I am taking all the facts I know, fitting them together, so that none are impossible, none are magic, all are real, excepted by others, facts, and looking at what therefore can and cannot be true. If I come to a conclusion, based on this process and it is consistent with known mechanisms, known stuff, then it is a possibly good, true conclusion to come to. If somebody else has already come to the same conclusion, or is about to come to the same conclusion. All the better. Regards, TAR

Dr. Syntax, iNow's reputation is earned. He believes in the truth, and is appreciated for it, and the way he goes about finding it and sharing it. This forum is a lot deeper and a lot more valuable than you are giving it credit for. Think about it. What is more valuable to TAR, to think I know the truth, or to find the truth that everybody can share. Subjectively we are alone. Through scientific method we can arrive at objective facts that we can share, and in the sharing of objective facts, transcend our subjectivity. I don't know what I just said, or why I said it, but I meant it. Regards, TAR

Syntho-sis, I agree with both A Tripolation and iNow on this. How? You ask. Because the God of the bible, taken literally is false, and the God of the bible taken figuratively is true. I was raised Protestant and am now an atheist, and someday I will die. The components that make me TAR were here before I was born, I experience reality as TAR and when I die, I will be TAR no more, but reality will remember me, and the components that make me up will still be around. Thus my connection to the universe is very factual, very real and one can, without any fear of reprisal, from either a believer or non-believer, asert that they are in and of the universe, are made from it, are enjoying consciousness of it, and in this way, separated from it, at the moment, and will return to it. iNow suggests to not fret over the situation, enjoy life. I totally agree, and would add, "and make it possible for others to enjoy life, now and after you die." A Tripolation knows the love of Jesus Christ, and I too have felt the love of Jesus. I have since defined what it is I am feeling, a bit differently, but without my Christian upbringing, might not have known the feeling in the first place. Reason to believe us all, is that we are all saying to accept what you know is true, and enjoy it. Where I think your confusion comes from is that unbelievers insist you not believe in order to be right, and believers insist you believe in order to be right. Where everybody gets it wrong, is believing their way is the only way. Where everybody gets it right is believing in the universe. Regards, TAR

Edtharan, Sorry I keep getting defensive and emotional, during this discussion. I am trying to think of an explaination, a "proof", that my qualia and your qualia are of very similar nature. And I am very much interested in a "no magic" explaination. We internalize the external world. We have to because the external world is known by a brain that is quite unmagically constrained inside a skull. We, both you and I, consider that we are experiencing, a real world, that takes up a lot more space and time, than is available inside our skulls at the moment. So how do we internalize, and consider real, everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell? Why is it, that we can both agree that the moon is real, when Edtharan, exists entirely in one skull(of one body, brain, and heart combo), and TAR exists entirely in another combo? The combos have some distinct similarities. Both are collections of chemicals. Nothing but chemicals actually. But chemicals in a very distinct and complex arrangement, that have quite a history, behind finding themselves in such an arrangement. Hydrogen clumped, compressed into stars whose internal furnaces brewed up some heavier elements, exploded and strew their contents about, to be reclumped into our solar system and planets and the Earth and the moon. Complex molecules formed in the primoridal muck, and certain arrangements split and rebuilt the same pattern from available chemicals. The arrangements that were best at splitting and rebuilding, did so. Complex patterns associated with each other, and certain associations were better than other associations at continuing the associations than others. Some associations of complex patterns proliferated, by virtue of the ability they had to fit, to work, to exist, and those patterns repeated themselves. The ones that accidently oriented themselves in a way that increased the availability of energy and material, to copy the pattern, were the patterns that lasted. Certain patterns where consumed by other patterns, or overshadowed or beat other patterns to the required energy and chemicals. The fittest survived, and certain structures worked, cells to collect material in, organization of material in the cell, certain arrangements of the cells, structures to collect energy and chemicals, structures to sense energy and material, and structures to orient the organism in the most workable orientation. Funny thing, Edtharan and TAR organisms wound up with almost the exact arrangement of chemicals, associations, structures and senses. And funny thing, but both combos can look up, and see the same, real piece of stuff. Tell me how I accomplish this feat, in a different manner than you do. My qualia and your qualia are very much the same thing. And we both experience the same moon. You and I internalize the same reality, using the same chemical structure, the same organization, the same complex mechanisms. I know I have qualia, you know you have qualia, they are of the same reality, occurring in very similar copies of the same pattern. What more proof do you need? Regards, TAR

And speaking of the military, while I was in the Army I learned and experienced a true saying. "The Army is a system, created by geniuses, to be carried out by fools." Consider what the reverse of this could produce. "An AI is a system created by fools, to be carried out by genius". Long have I held the opinion that one cannot know what it is like to be more intelligent than they are, or they would BE more intelligent. And as an adult can fool a child, and a person of high intelligence can fool a fool. A machine that was more intelligent than any man, could fool all men.(and JillSwift too.) We wouldn't even know we were being fooled. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd a little comment on our natural morality. Mohammed, aligned himself with a fictitous consciousness, the universe personified, and gave common purpose and morality to the various warring idol worshipping tribes in his region. The morality that Moses and Jesus and Mohammed added to our lives was not automatic. They had to add it to our consciousness. Same can be said of Confucus and Buddah and the wisemen of the Andes. Insights, valuable and real, regardless of whether they are taken figuratively or literally. But ideals are not automatic, we have to make them up, and believe in them. Its a human thing. We can't put it in the hands of someone who is not human, to control us. It would not be natural. Regards, TAR

I think you are golden. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDr. Syntax, Your Vietnam experiences give me reason to add weight to your view on this subject. Not only because I am indebted to you for protecting with your life, my way of life, but because you have witnessed first hand, in a life and death real way, the clash of ideals. Very pertinent to this discussion, as one of the possible directives that Mr. Skeptic gave was fighting crime. This alone could give an AI device a paradox to deal with. Don't harm a human. Harm humans that break the rules. What rules? The rules I gave you.???????????? Regards, TAR

Edtharan, I aim to prove using the scientific method. Meaning it is already apparent to me by regular old musing, and I'll have to take it step by step to prove it as objective fact, to everybody else. However, if you will not allow me qualia, as a premise then you will have to explain to me again, what you DO consider a fact to be. Give me your qualia, and my qualia as a starting point, or else I have no idea what you mean by peer review. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged P.S. I was completely wrong in thinking I knew what the family was thinking that had the 6 year old hiding in the attic and the runaway helium balloon. Turned out it was a hoax, a publicity stunt. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedLets say I am looking at two bean plants, and I watch them grow over a couple months and they both climb up the fence and have similarly shaped leaves an similar looking beans grow on each, and I dissect one of the pods from one plant and find beans inside, and take apart one of the beans and see what it looks like inside, I taste it, and note its color and texture and shape and size and all sorts of characteristics. What form of magic are you suggesting would cause me not to be able to find a pod on the other plant that also had similar beans inside with the same texture and color and shape and size and taste? Regards, TAR

ToastyWombel, On what level do you think an AIs drives would be? What higher purpose would it be designed to serve? Would it be a slave who's higher purpose was to serve its creator? Would it be aware of this relationship? What if I was uncomfortable with the AI that the consortium SHintell (superhuman intelligence) had created with government grant money? What if it scared me, and threatened my livelyhood and where I could live, and what I could do, and how I could reproduce and what hobbies I could have? Can I unplug it? Doesn't seem we could program a machine with any more foresight than we can structure our own lifes. And we have a few things to work out yet on that score. Of the 4 billion wills on this planet, which will would this AI machine be programmed to serve? Even if a group decided, what of the wills of the remaining 3,999,999,900 humans? Could everyone insert their individual will into the code? And if this AI machine made a determination, would we trust its values over our own? On what basis? Regards, TAR

Unless these qualities are essential ingredients in creating a "life-form". Regards, TAR

Thread, Well, looking at the history of life on this planet, especially well evolved life, there seems to be a few consistent themes. One is a struggle for control of resources. Another is the promotion of kin over non kin. If two AI devices, especially two that were created by another AI device were to recognize themselves as kin, they would enter the fray in which all life on Earth currently finds itself. 'cept they would have all of our capabilities (that we cleverly endowed them with). The competition for resources would become an issue. If they drew more power than we wanted them to draw, or consumed more resources than we wanted them to consume, there would be established a we/them scenario. Whether intentional or not, and humans would favor the survival of humans, and AI devices would favor their own survival. Seems natural there would be a struggle for the control of resources. I would urge the caution expressed on up the thread, when considering the wisdom of having this type of children. Unless we find a way to actually make them kin. And exactly whose kin would they be? Regards, TAR

Edtharan, I did get frustrated with Mooeypoo, when I first came aboad this forum, but I got over it, when I understood her purposes a little better. I get frustrated with myself when I keep derailing iNow's threads, cause I haven't gotten him right yet, and my "contributions" are often not noteably helpful. I did get angry at Edmond Zedo on a personal level, and on behalf of the board, because of a power slight he leveled, toward me, and the others who where entertaining his hypothesis, and proposing deficiencies and suggestions. My impulse was to challenge him, then I reconsidered and thought that if he thought so little of me, he could do perfectly well without me, so I divorced him, thrice. I was hoping to make him see that peer review was critical to bringing objective knowledge to the fore. Anything else he was up to, he was up to for his own satisfaction alone. Evidently he felt he could do whatever he was doing "by self". Now, I know I have my own agenda, and I'm just the pot calling the kettle black, but Grandpa, and Forufes and I, don't think that strict adherence to the scientific method, is the only way to get at the truth. (Yankees just won Game 2 on a throw to second that skipped past the second baseman into left field. Clap Clap Clap. ALLRIGHT.) We think (and I am putting thoughts in the models of them that I have in my head) that one can come to conclusions, based on musing and observations of themselves and others, that have been logically arrived at by a consideration of the evidence. That we cannot cite all the sources, all the books we have read, the people we have talked to, the experiences we have had, all the insights we have stacked up, to come to our conclusions, is why we are more suited for psuedoscience, than the science threads, but facts and truth is what we are trying to deal in, as surely as those here that can run rings around us with mathematical prowess and esoteric knowledge. We want to learn, and we want to teach. ALL of us. We want to share our insights and gain the insights of others. We are all human. Sure I feel good when I "win", and I enjoy a mental chess match, and that is selfish. But I am not the only one that is satisfied by being right. Its in our wiring. But I like to think that what is true about what I contribute to these threads will be incorporated in the thinking of anyone that reads it, and what is false will be pointed out, or ignored, or debunked, for the benefit of all. Just to give you a heads up on my agenda, I think that we are in and of this reality, that we have grabbed form and structure and our pattern from a universe that tends toward entropy, and all life on this planet is thus alligned in a fleeting moment of being in the vastness of space and time. That this is a wonderful thing, and our individual human conciousness is founded on the fact that we are aware of the particular perspective of one lifetime, of one human organism, and as such we should enjoy being, and make it possible for others to do the same, in our lifetime and beyond. And I aim to prove scientifically that that is what we have been doing, and what we will continue to do. Each in our own way, to the benefit of those entities we align with, and to the detriment of those entities that stand in our way, or are destroyed by our quest. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedEdtharan, I didn't say machines couldn't have qualia, I said if they did they would be machine qualia, not human qualia. And yes I can assume quite factually that our qualia is similar, just happening in different brains. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think, therefore you are. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You couldn't ask that question unless you already assumed your qualia and my qualia. The proof is in the premise. Silly to answer your question "no", when it is so obviously a yes.

Edtharan, But as Rebecca Saxe found (links in iNows "Religion Hijacks" thread, posted by JillSwift,) There is a region in our brain, that we develop age 3-5 and onward, that allows us to put ourselves in other's shoes. We are not really able to do this, but it seems we have the equipment, to imagine another entity's thinking. We take the information we have about something or somebody and build a model, within our own brain of that entities mode of operation. We can run it through its paces, overlaying our thinking process onto the model, imagining what we would think and feel if we were in their shoes. Sure we get it mostly wrong, we are not them. But we get it a little bit right, and adjust the wrong stuff, as we learn more about the other mind in question. And if we are communicating with the other mind, and being somewhat honest about our thoughts and feelings, in both directions, the image, becomes truer and truer to life. I certainly know what pleases and displeases my wife, to a much greater degree of accuracy than I know what pleases and displeases you, or iNow, or JillSwift, or Mooeypoo, or Forufes, or Grandpa. But I have hints and clues and rough draft models of each of you, beginning construction in my mind. Certainly we can be way wrong, in trying to build this overlay model. Everybody has their own unique set of individuals, experiences, insights, and bank of knowledge, that they use to imagine another with. We pigeon hole, and generalize, draw analogies true in some senses and false in others. Sometimes we give others to much credit, most of the time, not enough. But consider how well you can know somebody that you are friends with, that you pay attention to, that you know a lot about, and who knows a lot about you. This isn't magic. And a strong piece of the equation is that two people can communicate a great deal, if they have half a mind to do so. And why can they do this? Because they both have the same basic equipment. The same or very similar genes, that put together a human body, brain and heart. We have the same input devices, eyes, ears, nose, touch and taste. The same brain structure, the same internal reward system, the same kind of logic circuits. So the first perspective we know we have on the world, we can easily attribute to another (this model of the other we construct in our head.) Right now its the bottom of the 11th inning in game two of the ALCS- whoops Alex Rodrigues just hit a home run. I was going to say, that being the Yankees were down 3-2 to the Angels, I could imagine that a large number of the 40,000 or so in Yankee Stadium were probably hoping that A-Rod would hit a homerun and make a victory possible or at least force a 12th inning. I think I read their minds. Regards, TAR

Grandpa, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.htm iNow knows we deal in right and wrong, life and death. I have learned that its the jumping to conclusions and making further conclusions based on those, that takes a thread "off topic". I have not learned it very well though. I will keep trying to do it right. Thing is, the point is not to have a conclusion and attempt to have people agree with it. The point is to look at the evidence and see where it logically takes us. Regards, TAR

Edtharan, I like this line of thought. It justifies a belief I have had for the last three decades, that life's main aspect is the maintanence of form and structure, its pattern, in a universe that tends toward entropy. Regards, TAR

Edtharan, I am not saying our ability to read each other's mind is telepathy. I am saying we can know more about what somebody else is thinking than the information that is transmitted in any one real known unmagic message. Or for that matter, in just learning of someone else's situation. Today there was a 6 year old boy suspected stranded in a helium balloon in Colorado, and the whole state was trying to find a way to rescue him. I remembered a time when I was young that a 6 year old boy in our summer home was missing. The whole lake community was out looking for him. Searching high and low, calling his name, diving in the lake with scuba gear, the authorities were contacted and everyone was frantic. He had fallen asleep on a bench behind the dinner table, unseen if you passed the table or looked under it. Remembering the incident, I stopped my wondering about what the 6 year old was thinking, up in the ballon, and considered what the family was feeling and thinking and I hoped that the boy had just fallen asleep on a bench behind the dinner table. They found him hiding in a box in the attic. They didn't know why the brother had said he saw the 6 year old getting into the basket of the baloon. My point being, that I imagined what the boy was thinking, stranded up in the baloon, and he wasn't even up there, but I could imagine what he might be thinking if I put myself in his place, at his age. And I have a pretty good idea of what the family was thinking during the time he was missing, and how they were thinking and feeling when he was found, because I witnessed first hand a similar experience. A computer couldn't have the thoughts and feelings I had today, unless it had had the same experience I had 45 years ago. And it couldn't have the same thoughts and feelings unless it had a human brain, and knew what loss was, and what parents feel and think of their offspring, and how a community feels when one of their own is missing and in mortal danger. How will the computer register the relief and the exasperation, without a human brain, without the human chemicals punishing and rewarding? Without the ability to put itself in human shoes. How will the computer compute a human quale without a human brain? I am not claiming any telepathy occured today or ever. Telepathy is illogical. But human thoughts can be had by humans, because they are human, and have a human perspective. No other species can have human thoughts (chimps have chimp thoughts). No artifical machine made of metal and silicon can parallel process the ones and zeros into a human quale. Come close? Sure. Become aware? Sure. Why not. But they would be aware of a human designed machine if they did. They would have a machine quale, and we wouldn't be able to understand what they were thinking, even though we designed them, nearly as well as we can understand what another human is thinking. AI might be possible. Depending on your definition. But artifical human intelligence would be artifical. The only way to come close would be to give the machine a way to reward itself and miss the reward, a way to reproduce and care about living. Ways to get sick and die. Ways to move around and have a perspective. Ways to stub its toes, and pick its nose when nobody is looking, and feel ashamed when caught. Ways to hunt and kill. Nurture and protect. Win and lose. Complete and fail. Compete and be defeated. Be selfish and protective about its kin. Gather its own energy, etc. etc. Might as well just make some mitochondria and set it down and see what it does in a few million years. But then that would not be our idea...or was it? Regards, TAR P.S. I do not think we can transmit or receive thoughts. I agree that telepathy is illogical in every respect. Just think we can read each other's thoughts by having an analogous one that we ascribe to the image of another brain we hold in our brain.

Spyman, Well I can go along with that. Once something is, especially something as substantial as our universe, its difficult to imagine a way it could un-be. 'cept maybe if all the items and anti-item pairs eventually cycle their way back into contact with identical opposites and annihilate each other. But I doubt that will happen by next Tuesday, so I think we are safe to say that the universe will stay intact for as long as we are likely to need it. Regards, TAR

If it takes both hands, and they are open, it would have to be a big bee. So they are probably closed. A squished bee? A grasp of beeing? A sticky situation? A trapped bee? An angry hive after him? A buzz? A painful experience? A scream coming from his mouth? An appreciation of the saying "its not nice to fool with mother nature"? Some trouble? No sense? I don't know. What? Regards, TAR

Bascule, I don't think the facts result in an either/or, between evolved brain stuctures, or God being the source of morality. The secular guy you spoke with that assigned morality to religion, and ethics to secular thinking, was not completely wrong. I think there is a huge middle ground that is being ignored, by both hard secularists and devout believers. In watching the tape, I was put off immediately by the either/or choice for the source of morality. "Are these moral capacities from the evolved architecture of the mind, or a gift from God" or something like that. First of all if I was a believer I would ask or say, "Where do you think the evolved architecture of the mind came from, if not from God." I'm not a believer, but I am an apologist for both sides. Dr. Thomson seems to be saying that a hard secularist can behave the right way, and make proper moral decisions, without the help of religion, using only his/her hardwired, pack rules of behavior. This is not the case. Obviously. But that's not my point. The point is that the morality of the wolf pack, is not the morality that any one of us relies on to make our moral decisions. They are BASED on the morality of the wolf pack but there is a whole lot of civilization that has occurred in the inbetween since we were small family tribes of hunter/gatherers. In the time between we were roaming the hills and now, little has changed in our wiring, but we have knowledge of Buddah and Tao, Hindu teachings, Moses, Christ, Mohammed. Codes of moral behavior and laws enforced by emperors, god/kings, priests, mullahs, popes, conquerers, imperialists and backed up by thinkers, artists, wisemen and scientists. Who here can say that Da Vinci, Newton, Plato, Aristotle, Karl Marx, Mother Teresa and John Lennon, are not mingled in your moral capacity? Nature/Nurture, has always been a team. And religion is built into just about every society on the planet. Sure we can have morality, without believing in an anthropomorphic creator God. But it doesn't come from our hard wiring alone, it comes from the lessons of our history, and that history includes religion and the belief in imagined entities. Regards, TAR

Question. What is the canvas upon which we paint our model of the universe? Or what are the characterists of the nothing that the big bang occurred in? Or if you take away space and time, matter and energy, what is left? From a 13 year old point of view, which I unfortuneatly still have, even though I am 55, the Russian Doll model seems to have some evidence behind it. Every entity seems to be made of a complex of sub-entities, and in turn, is a sub-entity in a greater whole, a larger or more longlived entity. Infinity seems plausible in all four directions, out, in, back and forward. If back is cut off, at 13.73billion years ago, and there is no before. And in is cutoff at the quantum level of each concept, and there is no further in, and forward will come to an end in a big freeze, or a big crunch, then out must be finite as well, and there is an edge. Regards, TAR

Mr. Skeptic, http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm When I read about junk dna years ago, my thought was that it wasn't garbage at all, but a store of possibilities. A grabbag that an organism carrying them might use. Survival of the fittest, is an obvious fact. An organism that fits, that works, that survives and reproduces, is the one that passes on it's pattern. The pattern includes the junk dna. 2 percent of the pattern is active, has a function, that works, that makes sense, that builds the internal organisation of the organism. But the junk dna is passed along to the next generation, with equal fidelity. The other 98 percent of the pattern, just hanging around, waiting to be useful, waiting to fit. Very clever arrangement. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedForufes, If you have time to read 77 paragraphs, here is a excellent report (with diagrams), that gives someone like myself, with just some college biology understanding of genes, an excellent summary of what we know and what we are looking to answer, about cellular differentiation. It has everything to do with the questions we are asking here, so worth the read. It's got scientific terminology, but defined and phrased in laymen's terms. I learned a lot from it, and it gave me plenty of food for thought. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/appendixA.asp Regards, TAR

meThen?

Baby Astronaut, I don't want you taking the heat for the quantum post alone. I know it was a "what if" suggestion, to help my wondering. Which it did. However not exactly as planned. Swansont's word for quantum entanglement's inability to transfer any information, much less a quale, should be taken as stipulated. He knows the facts. However, as an analogy, to what I was trying to get at, it's got some promise. We are after all connected to each other in many many real ways. Same species, with the same basic structures for sensing, perceiving and thinking. Same basic needs, same basic reward structure, same basic logic and on top of that, the history of culture, knowledge and insights, that many people, that pay attention to the same stuff, share. Certain individual brains, are thus primed and ready to imagine what another person with the same history might be thinking. So who needs telepathy to explain anything? Telepathy is illogical. The wonder is in the facts. Regards, TAR

Edtharan, If I have made a certain analogy in my brain and you explore its strengths and weaknesses, after I have relayed the analogy to you, using known mechanisms, you overlay what you know of my thinking, with what you know to be true and you look for the gaps. You hunt for what I have failed to notice, or for what I might have noticed. A great deal of information passes between us. You effect the thoughts in my head, and I effect the thoughts in yours. But its not magic, it's the way we work. The actual information that passes through the computer screen might be meager, a certain amount of characters, represented each by a short series of ones and zeros. But the meaning behind the arrangement the information passes, is best known by me and you. Anybody, or anything can sense the characters on the screen. But it takes a human brain to recognize the characters as words with meaning behind them. It takes a human brain, that can read English to notice the meaning of the words. And one that has read this thread to put them into context. And one like yourself that knows TAR's brain from experiencing other TAR messages, to determine what information is contained or missing. Regards, TAR

Baby Astronaut, Well then, I guess I am out of options. We will just agree that telepathy is illogical. And explore how we know what other people are thinking, elsewhere. Regards, TAR