Strange

But (as far as we know) there is no other type of computation that can do things that current computers can't do. This is often used to argue that either: a) Computers must be able to do everything the human mind can (sentience, creativity, emotions, etc); or b) The brain can't be just a computer; there must be "something else" involved. The question is how can we ever know. If one day there is an AI that claims to be sentient, says it loves beautiful music, falls in love, cries in a romantic movie, writes poetry, etc. then some people will say it is just pretending to experience those things because that is what it is programmed to do. Others will say that is no different from humans. So, even if we were to create a "real" AI, it won't settle the argument!

Agree completely (Didn't mean to sound as if I was disagreeing.)

Well, information in neurons is conveyed by chemical signals rather than electric currents. But, yes, the communication is another analogy that could be made (I don't think that is what Gees intended though.) I don't see why. Computation is not defined by the communication mechanism but by the operations performed. As far as we know the brain and a computer are limited to the same set of operations and the same limits of computability. So nothing we currently know says that strong AI is impossible. Apart from a belief in some magical "extra" that defines the human mind.

That is a ridiculous argument. That would be like someone at the time when only black and white television existed saying that the concept of "colour television" is hard to accept because they have only seen B&W TV. It is also a straw man because no one has claimed that any form of current AI is sentient and has a "self". You often claim to be a "philosopher" and yet you are willing to make up your own meanings for words. Clarity of expression is at the heart of philosophy. You need to try harder. This is even worse. One can draw an analogy between the fact that there is an image in the mirror (and not "reality") and the way that our brain constructs our perception of external "reality". But it is just an analogy. You cannot use it to draw conclusions about the behaviour or nature of the brain. Because the brain is not a mirror. Basically, you are confusing the image in the mirror for the real thing by trying to make this argument. Or maybe the unconscious part of the mind is just a different sort of processing going on in the brain. The analogy with electricity is wrong. Electricity provides energy to power the computer, The thing that provides the energy to power the brain is biochemistry (and ultimately the food we eat). One could draw a dubious analogy between the conscious mind and application software, on the one hand, and the unconscious mind and the operating system on the other (most people are not aware of what the operating system is doing behind the scenes, in the same way they are unaware of the unconscious processing the mind does). In both cases, the application software and the operating system, they are just programs being run by the computer. This is not a great analogy (I am not a fan of analogies) but it is better than the "electricity" one.

On this basis, it would be impossible for you to provide any evidence for (or, more importantly, falsify) your idea. You can always say "ah, yes, they are different but we are just measuring it wrong". This fails to be science at this point. But what about the observations we make from space or on other planets? Why they don't they produce inconsistent results? Why don't the electronic circuits of space probes start to fail when they get beyond the earthy sphere of influence? They may be incorrect. The universe could have been created 15 minutes ago and made to look billions of years old. It is up to you to provide evidence that they are incorrect. I doubt you can do that. If these fundamental properties changed, then it would make a noticeable difference to the physics and chemistry of distant objects. (But of course, you have your "get out of jail" card that says we can't detect that.) That doesn't answer the question. Stop being so evasive. This is largely incomprehensible nonsense. But thanks for confirming that you are abusing the word "logic" by using the usual crackpot definition. Bt scientists do not play it safe. They are constantly striving to find new evidence, new science, new theories. And, if you are quoting someone, it is good practice, and only polite, to reference the source. Why would an extraterrestrial civilisation prove it rather than observations of inanimate objects? Based on your evasiveness and dubious "logic" I am beginning to wonder if this is a religious argument. Is that the case? Is this whole argument based on Geocentrism, or something? Is that your "special logic"?

This hardly seems like a great insight. It is rather obvious. So can you answer the question: summarise what is the novel aspect of your idea, because I have no idea what you are claiming. And, importantly, how would you test this idea? In particular, what would prove it to be wrong? Again, you didn't answer the question.

It was a major issue for Newtonian gravity and for GR. Science is not about "truth". If other researchers cannot investigate this, then it doesn't seem to be a scientific idea. I have no idea what a "specific sort of logic" means. You do know that logic is a formalised discipline; effectively a branch of mathematics? So which "specific form of logic" are you referring to? Or by "logic" do you mean the common "it makes sense to me so it must be right"? Let's see if this is a scientific idea: what would prove you wrong?

Do you have any evidence for this?

No. Evidence for your claims such as "I claim that atom has become 2D" or "They are 3D when we measure/observe ..not while they are in the superposition state." Do you have any? Or are these just wild guesses?

Evidence? Just repeating your absurd claims without any evidence is a violation of the rules.

As it appears to be something you have invented without any evidence, why do you think there might be an equation to describe this? Macroscopic objects have been put into a superposition of states.

Not true. The fact that the transistors in your computer work is due to "quantum weirdness". In fact the reason glass is transparent and metals conduct is explained by quantum effects. All of chemistry is explained by quantum effects. Do you have evidence for this? OK. Go on then. Show us this equation. BTW, for the benefit of anyone wondering, the video is a Royal Institution lecture on loop quantum gravity.

And yet Newton's laws describe the motions of these pretty well. The one exception is the precession of Mercury, which required the greater accuracy of GR to fully account for. Can your model correctly calculate the precession of Mercury without using GR? Please provide the observational evidence to support this claim. No one said it was. This is science, not religion. It is unscientific if you cannot provide any evidence. Why not look at what people study now? Please provide some evidence to support this claim. Yes. Nonsense. You really do need to learn a tiny little bit of physics before embarrassing yourself like this. Please provide evidence to support this claim. Irrelevant. And yet science progresses. But when wild guesses are based on ignorance of science, they are very unlikely to be correct. The evidence contradicts you. Again. Nonsense. Do you have evidence that the potential energy of the gravitational field is calculated incorrectly?

You are right. I apologise. Lets get back to the topic. I think I have missed your point among the long rambling life story and other waffle. I have picked up a couple of points: "My brain, in short, processes information collectively" (that is a bit vague; I don't really know what it means) Something about neurons being highly interconnected (which is not news) So you could you summarise your idea here. Perhaps with an indication of how this differs from current models of brain function. And also a description of how it could be tested experimentally. No it isn't! (But lets leave that there. )

Not unless you provide a reference. Otherwise I have to assume you made it up.

This the same irrelevant bollocks you posted before. You just said it was related to quantum eraser experiments But feel free to provide a REFERENCE that says that radar systems use “particle precognition”. Or any reference that says anything at all about “particle precognition”. Anything to show this exists outside your imagination.

I am familiar with quantum eraser experiments. Contrary to your claims, these are described mathematically. Stop dodging the issue. Please provide a reference to a quantum eraser experiment that talks about “particle precognition” because as far as I can tell, you have invented this. Or just admit there is no such thing.

I am not asking you to define it mathematically. Just provide a link to a (reputable) source showing that it is a real thing and not something you made up.

We can usually see one star at this time (the Sun). We can sometimes see the Moon. In the morning or evening you can often see Venus as well. So it is obviously not a problem with transparency.

I posted a link from the Event Horizon Telescope with information about this. If you genuinely want to learn more about this then I suggest you start a new thread in the appropriate part of the forum.

As I have provided references to support what I say but you just make unsupported assertions, I think most people will be able to tell who is posting nonsense. I will take this as your admission that you know there is no such thing as “particle precognition”

What do you mean "prove it"? Do the simple arithmetic and prove it yourself. That is because this is something that only exists inside your head. In other words, you just made it up because there wasn't enough nonsense in this thread. Errr... what? I just said the Higgs has no charge. And listed several other particle with no charge. Because you said: Which is obviously just more nonsense.

More excuses to avoid providing any references. So multiplication and division are too complicated for you? You will make a great math teacher. Are you just going to stick to teaching addition? Maybe with subtraction as an optional advanced module. (And I did get the same answer.) You mentioned "spooky action at a distance" which how Einstein described entanglement: "Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"[24] or "spooky action at a distance."" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) (That is a "reference" by the way. It is how reasonable people support what they say. You should try it sometime.) So you need to explain what you mean when you say "particle precognition with an action at a distance" because it is not something I have ever heard of. How about providing a reference? (I won't hold my breath as I am sure it is just something else you have invented.) You said neutrons can turn into electrons. This is obviously not true. Given your impressive ignorance of physics, I think we can ignore what your "believe". This is just even further off topic (Although I'm not even sure what the topic is: "Conjurer's Random Fantasy Physics" perhaps.) Photons have no charge Neutrinos have no charge Gluons have no charge Neutrons have no charge Higgs bosons have no charge Z bosons have no charge So apart from all those things with no charge ...

What is? The conversion of photons into electrons? If so please provide a reference. A teaching degree in mathematics? I find that implausible. Why were you so afraid of the simple arithmetic involved in checking the mass and diameter of a black hole? The design of waveguides in radar systems has absolutely nothing to do with quantum entanglement. It is based on purely classical physics. But, feel free to provide a reference to support this claim. You said neutrons can turn into electrons. Not the same thing at all. Also, only free neutrons decay, so this doesn't apply to neutron stars. Neutron decay only gets a passing mention there. Most forms of radioactive decay do not involve neutron decay. Maybe because that situation doesn't happen. Because it can't happen. Because conservation. So stop making stuff up.

That would violate conservation laws. How can neutrons turn into electrons? Also, what is the "half life" of a quark? Please provide a reference to support your claims. You are the one ignoring conservation: how can photons (no charge) turn into electrons (with charge)? Please provide a reference to support your claim. That is meaningless. How can it be "known" if it as not yet been described? But, if it is "known" you should have no problem providing a reference to it. Please do so. Lose their energy? Those damn conservation laws again. Well, this has been fun. But your level of trolling is not really up to standard so I shall request that this thread is closed now.