Popcorn Sutton

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. I'm saying that this particle that is at the end of my probe is suspended freely in a vacuum, it's entangled particle is part of a molecule and is therefor mechanical. I observe the slightest bit of resistance on my end when I poke or spin the particle, therefor I can conclude that the entangled particle is subject to friction. No?

Thanks for the example, it really helped to clarify. Here is a thought experiment that can demonstrate the ability to make predictions if you agree with it. Say that we make two particles which are separated from here to the sun spin in opposite directions because they are entangled. Say that the one we spin has no observable resistance due to its own surroundings, but it does have resistance due to it's entangled particles surroundings. Can't we measure that resistance and make conclusions about the entangled particles environment? That is technically information transfer even though the particles are not modified.

I hate to ask for the clarification but i think that the quantum mind hypothesis relies on this heavily. So what your saying is that particle a and particle b are the same particle, but they are suspended in superposition. Making particle a spin DOES NOT make particle b spin in the opposite direction simultaneously? I have a feeling that that is why you are referring to its classicality. I do have a proposal, but it relies on instantaneous interaction being true.

No I understand what you guys are saying. What you're saying is that you have 2 identical particles and you make one spin, and the other spins in the opposite direction, so therefor there is entanglement. But because the action itself does not modify the particle, there can be no information transfer, right?

So what you're saying is that quantum entanglement doesn't exist?

The limit of c sounds like a rule to me -.-

I don't agree with that. If you can approximate (determine the environment) of n points in time, then you have information.

So entangled interactions don't occur faster than the speed of light?

How do we measure the entanglement to predict these occurrences? There has to be a numerical value and a probe of some sort I'd assume.

I know that my brain is technically me, but sometimes I wonder about it. How many people actually can relate with me? Does what I'm saying make sense? Could I get published for my thoughts? Are they useful? Is my mind unique or is it normal? Is it common for someone to be as obsessed about science as I am? Did I invent a new framework or did it exist prior to me? Have I sparked interest in others? Am I a punk? Is my tendency to be impulsive disturbing? Will I get recognition for my theories? Will I be like Noam Chomsky one day or will I be a good for nothing loser? Am I going to move to Mexico? Thailand? The Philippines? Am I going to be a politician? Am I influential politically? Philosophically? Is my brain useful? I have so many questions about myself that I wish others could answer for me, but I'm not sure if anyone will be able to. Feel free to move this topic or this post itself to the lounge. Sorry if it was a hindrance that I posted it here. PS. Mike that's the first time I've seen you make reference like that. Bravo!

I wrote this down really quick before I fell asleep. It seems like I have insights right before then and I just want to write them and share them. What I mean is that from this whole perspective I have of the world as information, if you're making the brain (or the world) computational, nothing can occur more than the point of interest at any given point in time for any given observer. By the point of interest, I mean whatever you're focused on, in a quantum sense, occurs more than anything else because that is how it maintains your focus. It's like this- Poi = ball World = ballgrassballtreeballskyballhouseballgateballnet Something like that

I used to believe that nothing was impossible, but then I thought that nothing can possibly occur more than the current point of interest. Maybe something could occur the same exact amount, but never more.

John, I'm sure it will serve a purpose in computational linguistics. It was copied out of python because I think that is the best programming language for the task. It's actually logic, math, and linguistics all in one. It's computational neuroscience basically.

I want to clarify on my idea of language as a computational system. I think that there are a few basic premises behind language acquisition, and that in order to make it computational, a new and unrecognized field that can be described as math is emerging. Here are the basic premises behind mathematical linguistics. One universal premise is pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is the ability to determine the statistical impracticality of randomness. This introduces the other premise, statistics plays a major part in this. In mathematical linguistics, there are four basic computational objects. 1. A set (the role this object plays is unknown, if it plays any role at all) 2. A list 3. A dictionary 4. A tuple Here is how these objects appear. '' or "" is a string Strings contain sequences of occurrences such as any sequence of letters. They consist of any positive whole number of occurrences including none. Lists are just that, lists. They can contain variables and strings. Dictionaries are entries and definitions (although the definitions are most likely not conforming to what we consider a standard definition at this point). Tuples are an object that can contain variables, strings, sets, lists, and dictionaries. Time is an example of a tuple. Tuples are context and attitude sensitive. This type of math is also not specific to language, it can be used psychologically, physically, cognitively, computationally, and for any number of other disciplines.

I might chime in if I may. Now that mikes three laws have been engraved in my brain, I'd like to put a spin on them philosophically speaking. 1. Anything or everything can occur if it has occurred or is occurring anywhere, at any time, in any number of universi, including, but not limited to, past, present, and future configurations of our own universe. 2. Anything or everything can occur only if it is prompted to occur spatiotemporally. 3. If there are reasons for something not to occur, the path of least resistance will be followed.

I made that argument a while back about a solid shaft being affected on both end simultaneously. Someone quickly shot me down

I thought that this question would be interesting to post on these forums. I was raised to be Christian, but approximately two years after I started looking into science, I abandoned that commitment. I don't want this thread to be religious in any way, I want to hear purely scientific and philosophical insights that have a basis in physics, neuroscience, and cognitive science in particular. I do not intend for this thread to be speculative in any way. I'm posting in the hopes that I may obtain new insight on this topic and share my understanding of this topic as well. That being said, I have thought of this extensively. In the following thread, I will refer to so called "spiritual experiences" such as OBE's (out body experiences), Astral Projection, and psychic phenomena such as clairvoyance, communicating with the dead, and ESP. I'm going to try and provide a basis for these phenomena in terms of physics, neuroscience, and cognitive science. The thing about this life is that I cannot access information that occurred prior to my birth (at least knowingly). A suicidal friend of mine once said, "death is probably just like before you were born. Nothing." I was shocked at first to hear this, mostly because of my religious beliefs at the time and because I used my beliefs to try and convince him that he had to find faith before he died or else he would go to hell. I was young at that point, so making reference to this is irrelevant to the person I am now. After giving it some thought, I've come to the conclusion that death probably is, at least in some ways, just like before you were born. I think that the difference I would like to point out is that even before you were born, for a very long time before you were born, you were at least partially embodied. I say this on the grounds of evolution. A persuasive argument for this conclusion was said something like this, "[statistically speaking, you are 1 person made from 2, those 2 were made from 4, those 4 were made by 8. Every generation you go back, you'll see that you existed as 1/n^n.]" I would cite an article or a thread that I've heard this from, but I can't think of where I can find it at the moment. I believe in the Quantum Mind, meaning that our thoughts are embodied structurally by atoms and molecules. These atoms and molecules become conscious in a linear aspect, but also emergent (not entirely conscious) in a hierarchical aspect, because of what I like to call quantum prompting. Quantum prompting is just a type of quantum entanglement dealing with information. Our senses receive input and solidifies it in some way so it can be accessed for future events. This information is equivalent to itself, obviously. So when this information gets prompted, it is prompted in all locations that it exists simultaneously (Quantum Entanglement) because it also exists in superposition. Based on these assumptions, I can safely conclude one of the major points of this thread, the point is that our (physical) minds are both embodied and disembodied simultaneously. Any equivalent information that exists within ourselves at this point in time could have easily existed years before we, as our current selves, came to walk the planet. Therefor, our existence outspans what we commonly call life (in the sense that we only have it from birth to death). As a further conclusion, OBE's are also, in fact, real experiences. (The same can be said of astral projection). I've come to the conclusion, over the past few days, that time is, in fact, experience itself. I have a good degree of confidence that this point is going to be very hard to argue for a very long time. This conclusion was based on a thought experiment about language I said in another thread here. I imagined, what if we not only had eyelids and earlids that function simultaneously with the same result, what if all of our senses had "lids" that functioned simultaneously with the same result? My conclusion is that we would be not be able to distinguish any sensory information from any other type of sensory information. All information would be audio-visual-olfactory-gustatory-kinesthetic information in one package. We would simply blink into this information and blink out of it. Well, under these assumptions, if we did not have time, we would not have experience, and from a mental perspective, it can be said the same way vice-versa and still be valid. This argument has validation from quantum physics mostly, in the sense that observation affects reality. Using this argument, I can give even further validation for OBE's to be true by saying that our consciousness can exist both within our embodied minds and without our embodied minds. Consciousness can exist inside and outside of our bodies (but I believe that it can only do so in a linear fashion). Well, if our basic components exist in superposition, who's to say that they won't continue to get prompted even after death. Furthermore, who's to say that they weren't prompted before our life? Who's to say that they weren't prompted and couldn't be prompted before, during, and after our life simultaneously? This lends credence for clairvoyance. I'm not even going to mention telepathy, I hate it honestly. Also, here is an excerpt from one of my previous trolls.

I'm interested in this topic so forgive me for quoting older posts. I feel like I have to provide my input. Kant says something along these lines- "The greatest thing that we have as humans is our freedom of will." When I think about "free will", I like to break it into its two separate words, one being "free", the other being "will". "Will" your actions ever be "free"? What "will" you do? What would you do if they really were "free". I have a family member in the police force who I spoke with regarding pattern detection technology. I would cite an episode of a british tv show (I think it's called "New Horizons") but I can't seem to find it atm. In the episode, they say something along these lines. "You may think that human behavior is quite random, but the evidence shows the contrary." They describe pattern detection (pattern recognition) technology that provides a "crime forecast". It's basically a prediction of where and when crime will occur based on previous activity, and it turns out that the software (which was developed by Stanford) predicts, with a greater than 50% degree of accuracy, where and when a crime will take place. Throughout the episode, they follow police officers while they use the technology to find drug dealers, gang activity, and grand theft auto. They also show its applications in finance and its importance in genetics. The point is that nothing inherent in nature is truly random. The system is deterministic, and it never, under any circumstances, diverges. If you are involved in criminal activity or find yourself within the proximity of criminal activity in any way, you may have already noticed that our cops, even local ones, seem to have a destination at a very specific time, and they race to the destination to get there on time. They are calling this "Progressive Policing", and I know, personally, that it has made things a lot more difficult on criminals. They say that it has reduced criminal activity in L.A. by about 60%. It's pretty amazing. That being said, it supports the idea that human behavior is not random. If you actually think about it, there really is no way it could be. I associate "random" with "free". So if you did have a free will, and as Sam Harris points out here, if I ask you to think about any movie, you're not going to think about Pluto. If you did have free will, you could start speaking an alien language at any given moment without any prior knowledge. If you were free, you wouldn't need to make decisions because you could, theoretically, choose every option, perform them all, and then go back in time and try other options. If you were free, you could fly a ufo yesterday. You could switch fingers with someone in China who you've never seen before. You could speak in reverse and in parallel with speaking forward. The point is that we can't possibly do these things. There is no way that they could exist in this universe. What "will" you do? Whatever you "will" do, couldn't possibly be free. It really is an illusion. This might be appropriate. Linguistic Relativity. From one of my early writings- Quantum theorists have developed mathematical theories that account for entanglement of observation with experimentation (The Copenhagen Interpretation, Von Neumann's approach). In the process, they've realized that there is a problem. The mathematical theory has a causal gap between possible variations in classical-type states and the probing questions that affect them. A probing question has a finite number of possible outcomes, but, as Henry Stapp says, there are an infinite number of possible classical-type states. The mathematical structure of the theory does not specify what this question is, or even put statistical conditions on the possibilities. (Stapp, 2007) The problem, that they so faithfully fill with a theory of "free will," is that there is a causal gap in the mathematical formula. This causal gap, in my opinion, should be filled with a causal theory. We, as linguists, need this theory of causality in order to produce a linguistically competent machine. A full explanation of grammar would fill that gap in the mathematical theory through the use of statistically applicable equations based on previously described phenomena. The probing questions can be determined, and I think it is our duty as linguists, and computer scientists, to find out how they can be determined. To posit the existence of a "free will" is too easy and won't allow for a linguistically competent machine. Stapp, H. (2007). Quantum Mechanical Theories of Consciousness. In V. a. Schneider, The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (pp. 300-311). Malden: Blackwell Brain, Minds and machines symposium. Chomsky at Montreal.

I'm honored to hear you say that about my argument. I thought it was very clever of me to propose because I've never heard someone explain it that way before, not to self-aggrandize though, I am anonymous on these forums. I am interested to hear your take on the system though. If you can't post it in this thread, maybe you'll consider making a new one because I think it would be a hot topic. And yes I was making reference to a physical mind btw. A mind, IMO, is an emergent result of quantum effects in coordination with classical physical events, chemistry, parameters, relativity, and structure. When I refer to relativity, I'm referring to spatiotemporal proximity (not to Einstein, I don't know enough about his theories so my judgement is suspended on that topic). Chomsky says that no biologist would give you an account of the evolution of the eye without first telling you what an eye is. He also says that there oughta be a snowflake in there somewhere. I call that snowflake a unit of knowledge and I assume that it is roughly equivalent to a neuron though I believe that a neuron is a container for the unit itself. So I guess we agree in that sense.

I believe you and I don't believe you on that point. I believe that language is emergent because it seems to be a categorical process and I think that categorizing is emergent. What I believe is central to the physical nature of language and the mind is the generative process itself. Generation does not yield emergence, generation is a parallel process with emergence in my opinion. If you look at neuroscience you'll see that the areas associated with meaning are conveniently located between the occipital, parietal, and motor areas of the brain. For this reason, I believe that language serves as a process that transforms input between modalities, and is central for mental purposes.

Imagine if every time you opened your eyes, you also began to hear, and vice versa. The information would just be sight. Auditory information is nonexistent at that point because it's indistinguishable from visual information. Because we don't experience vision this way, there is a dissociation between sound and sight. When you hear a loud bang, you ask yourself "what's that?" This happens before you start imagining what it is, and most of the time your imagination is barely, if at all, visual. Most of the time you'll carry on linguistically by saying something along the lines of "was that a gun?" ,"did something just fall?","that was weird." Etc. I'm sure a lot of people will verify this example based on their own experiences. So therefor, language transforms auditory information to visual and vice versa. It's an interface between modalities.

Here's an argument that they use language. They don't have earlids that block out auditory information which work just like eyelids and work simultaneously with eyelids. Therefor, they need to make auditory information correlate with visual. It's a transformation of input.Language is the interface.

Sorry if I boggled your minds, if you care to think about it you might find it as exciting as I do. This is why I don't think it has fully sunk in yet though because it is a mind boggler. The minds calculation is actually very simple, all you need to do is count. As Chomsky puts it- "one could construct a theory of calculations in the head that says that performance degrades or becomes impossible as numbers grow larger." It's really not necessary to use probability for anything other than segmentation. I've tried to explain that the mind is the number of units given time and behavior is the strongest unit given all units in a linear function. Units emerge because they are prompted both because they are entangled and because they interact with points of interest in some way. Using time as a tuple may seem complex, but really it's just decision theory and counting. NB: I'm still thinking about what I said here. I want to clarify and I hope that this will do the trick because it's going to be very difficult for me to type it out. Input = "hi" Time = hi,({'hi':'hiheyhiwhats uphiheyhihellohiwhats uphiwhats up'}hey({'hey':'heywhats upheyetc...'}...)) Emerging units = ['hey','whats up','hey','hello','whats up','whats up'] Generating = {'hey':2,'whats up':3,'hello':1} Maximum = 0 For unit in emerging units, If generating(unit) > Maximum Maximum = generating(unit) Output.append(unit) print Output Output = ['hey','whats up'] The point is that it is grammatical. A tuple consists of a subconscious variable (in this case it is hi) and a correlating dictionary for each variable(which consists of two strings, one containing an entangled quantum point of interest, and the definition is the point of interest and all of its pragmatic classical connections). Each variable is contained within the original set (for dispositional purposes). The original variable is most likely the empty unit ('') followed by the most likely unit and so forth subordinating while decreasing in likelihood. When I first looked at the most likely linguistic occurrences, it was null (the empty unit) followed by space, followed by vowels, followed by phonemes, followed by diphthongs, then morphemes, then roughly words, then words, then roughly phrases, and so forth. You can consider the result as superordinate because it magnifies the mind given all previous units followed by, or as a part of, the point of interest. You can also call it subordinate in a spatial sense because it is like comparing a seed to an apple, a blade of grass to a field, a field to the park, a park to the planet, a planet to the galaxy, etc. Time is experience. Life is longevity.

Wow that was brilliant.