andrewcellini

i'm leaving the possibility open to research because that seems to be the most reasonable; i certainly haven't read all of the literature on the subject. it would be daft to dig my feet in and defend a position i can't justify with evidence.

i used vestigial traits as an analogy. to clarify, i am not saying that consciousness is a vestigial trait, i just couldn't think of the term (which is spandrel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)).

frequency is not dimensionless, it's t^-1 are you sure you mean frequency? can you point out where i can find out about what you're calling frequency? it may be "causally impotent" entirely, but i don't know if that conclusion can be made because, due to lack of time, i don't know of research into such questions; there may very well be effects not relevant to decision making. if it is, it might be evolutionary baggage, like vestigial traits.

wouldn't it also be important (possibly more important that the two you've listed) to understand how much memory some program requires and how long some program will take? also, is there a more efficient way of achieving similar output? not sure how relevant this is to the topic though. it seems as if this is a poor analogy for understanding reality just because there is more to understanding the behavior of some program that to know what language it was written in and its output.

what is hindering the use of such data for the creation and further testing of models? this is not a clear point that you're making. also what you refer to as information in your previous post (dimensionless/frequency, whatever that should be taken to mean) is not, at least as far as i know, how information is described and used by computer scientists or information theorists or scientists/engineers of different fields.

what's wrong with that? do you have evidence of the contrary? you describe it as "seemingly implausible" and yet there is evidence that this is the case. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623- libet experiment http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06525.x/abstract;jsessionid=3E02092D4DA44FC46A854D194C50F1F6.f03t01- similar experiment how do you measure the "non-physical?" if you measured it, it would be physical

"(i) my thought that I'd like a cup of tea (ii) the brain state associated with that thought (iii) both" or... you have unconscious events in the brain preceding the brain states associated with consciousness which not only essentially "decide" what you want and what you'll do but also have an accompanying conscious state.

is there something that you wanted to discuss in particular, or do you just think it's a really cool idea?

that's word salad. capacity effectuality inherent? what is capacity effectuality supposed to mean? what do you mean when you say thought atom? you can't talk about what's "inherent" in it unless you can clearly define what it is. you've written one sentence that doesn't say much of anything. you can't really expect any discussion from what you've written so far.

we're reaching the end of what little i know (or think i know lol), billy. if, in your thought experiment, the two john's (for simplicity let's just call them both john) not only have distinct personal histories but are also on different planets, which implies different evolutionary histories, then it seems reasonable to conclude that they have different psychological states (and corresponding behaviours). this isn't to say that their psychological states aren't reducible to the structure of their brains, but the structures of brains on each planet will probably be different (not sure how much); because the structures are different, the psychological states will be different (allowing for one john to long for water and the other to long for something different). this discussion seems to be off topic from the question "can science explain consciousness," and you seem to agree that both john's would be conscious.

if they don't share a common history then i'm not sure if it's likely for them to have exactly the same brains unless they're made to.

aha! there it is.

no, i asked what measurable difference in this hypothetical scenario would there be from the memories of the copies? you asked a question about fools gold (how can you tell the difference) which you've now edited out. don't know why. no typo, perhaps you should give it a reread. if he's not drinking water (if he's drinking something else, or more likely inhaling something other than h20 like h2s) then he's not drinking water, and if he says otherwise he's wrong. why would the copy not associate h20 to "his water" if his memories are copies of john's, who does hold such an association? you can use the word "water" however you see fit, but that's not gonna change the outcome of drinking diethylether, i mean "water." the copying came from reading john's reply before yours.

what specifically? if xyz is not water chemically, then there is the measurable difference, therefore twohn would be incorrect in calling it water. that could mean that the process involved in creating the copy is not perfect. just because he calls it water doesn't make it water. water is h20, if he's drinking h2s and calling it water he's wrong. placing this in the year 1600 doesn't seem to add anything (but does allow you to narrow your options to two, see below). what is meant by superficially indistinguishable? it either is water or it isn't. this isn't a question of perception; water is defined by its physical and chemical properties. as i said above, you're ignoring another possible option: that the process creating these copies is imperfect leading the twin to think that something that isn't water is water.

wouldn't "twohn" pick up a glass of "xyz" as you put it and go "ah, water, just as i remember" and not "ah xyz...?" and he wouldn't be wrong in saying this because, and he could verify this; that it's water, as he remembers it (mouthfeel, wetness, etc) and as it is (by its physical and chemical properties). in the end it is water that is having an impact on him and not xyz; its introduction into discussion is unnecessary. what difference does it make that the memories are exact copies (that can be measured)? with fools gold vs gold, they are two different materials, iron pyrite and, well, gold. they have different properties which can be used to help distinguish between them.

because to have space and time means there are dimensions...

the rules are there so that topics are posted with rigor, or presumably enough rigor to be read and discussed on a discussion forum on the internet.

how is any of this falsifiable? how could you measure these quantities? also you need to be as clear as possible to get your ideas out there. you can't just coin terms and not explain what they mean. crackpot style is not very good. what is the reason for these equations? how did you derive them?

it does if you don't want to get the article from that specific link in the op, which i don't. the title of the paper would be good enough as i could look into other places to read it. i don't disagree with the rest of what you've posted.

is the paper published in any reputable peer reviewed journals?

codecademy provides free activities to help learn python (among other languages like javascript and ruby). pythontutor is also a good one to check out because it shows you how python is executed.

you were close; unless i'm completely mistaken the reaction looks more like: OH- + H3O+ <-> 2H2O i'm not going to respond to the latter part of your op as it seems like it belongs in speculations, and i'm definitely not qualified to answer it.

as it is you who is attempting to make some sort of argument, you may want to consider being more clear. no one here has direct access to your thoughts, and there are probably going to be more misunderstandings about what you're trying to say.

try patenting it

evidence? this is certainly not the first time this idea has popped up on these forums. one question i have is why do we have to be parasites? couldn't we be integral to the function of the "universe-brain?" lol