hope

[hoola]

false hope+false hope+false hope = hope -1

[ALine]

so 3*(false hope) = hope - 1 

so hope = 3*(false hope) + 1

?

[Phi for All]

Hope is what you believe in sometimes when it can have no real effect on the outcome. Hope is already sort of a -1, waiting for something >0 to fill it. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, ALine said:

so hope = 3*(false hope) + 1

?

I hope so.

[Bender]

2 hours ago, ALine said:

so 3*(false hope) = hope - 1 

so hope = 3*(false hope) + 1

?

3*(-hope)-hope=-1

hope=1/4

Shouldn't this be in the math section?

[hoola]

the 3 I refer to is the three minds, reptilian, mammalian, human. If the awareness is a quantum function, then each of the 3 has a 20mhz QComputr and as such, due to the monogamy principle of qm, only two are capable to entangle at a time, leaving one in relative isolation, except through the normal, very much slower electochemical route. This is the reason that hope, for us 3 brained is always an unfulfilled  3 way away.., as quanta don't play that way...unfortunately. Wow, I can't believe anyone responded to this thread, let alone the interesting entries...thanks all and Bender, everything is in the math section..

Edited July 25, 2018 by hoola

[Bender]

1 hour ago, hoola said:

the 3 I refer to is the three minds, reptilian, mammalian, human. If the awareness is a quantum function, then each of the 3 has a 20mhz QComputr and as such, due to the monogamy principle of qm, only two are capable to entangle at a time, leaving one in relative isolation, except through the normal, very much slower electochemical route. This is the reason that hope, for us 3 brained is always an unfulfilled  3 way away.., as quanta don't play that way...unfortunately. Wow, I can't believe anyone responded to this thread, let alone the interesting entries...thanks all and Bender, everything is in the math section..

Try as I may, I can't make any sense of this. If you are high or joking, please indicate so.

[hoola]

check out Penrose/Hammeroff. There is reasearch going on for some years now, that the quantum is required for consciousness, as regular synaptic electrochemical loops are too slow to maintain awareness...attention is being focused on the microtubules present in the cells that seem to have a quantum function, and at around a 20mhz clock freq...

[Eise]

19 minutes ago, hoola said:

check out Penrose/Hammeroff

I did. It is a nice try, but will not work. 

20 minutes ago, hoola said:

There is reasearch going on for some years now, that the quantum is required for consciousness

Sources? I mean, sources for research, not just chewing the idea (pseudo-) philosophically.

20 minutes ago, hoola said:

regular synaptic electrochemical loops are too slow to maintain awareness

But awareness is slow. Also, awareness is not continuous, even if it seems so. (There is a difference between being aware of an interruption, or an interruption of awareness itself.)

32 minutes ago, hoola said:

attention is being focused on the microtubules present in the cells

The attention of Penrose and Hameroff maybe, but not many more people I know of. But maybe you have some links to research programs about the role of microtubules in consciousness? 

[hoola]

well, if awareness is ticking along at 20mhz....I doubt if you could do anything but feel it as more or less continuous process. No, I don't know of any researches in the field who has the same stature of Penrose...but I have seen others doing lectures on related things on utube, such as the quantum processes within photosynthesis and birds that have  a quantum sensor in one of their eyes to see the magnetic fields in order to navigate during migrations. I realize the negative feelings about this and the "brain is too wet and noisy to allow quantum computations". According to their research, there are water free  regions in the microtubules, the skeleton support members of most all cells. And the photsynthesis data seems pretty persuasive, and that is in a wet plant leaf. Awareness is slow...?..try to catch a fly in your hand next time you see one.  

Edited July 25, 2018 by hoola

[Strange]

2 hours ago, hoola said:

the 3 I refer to is the three minds, reptilian, mammalian, human

You do realise that is just a bit of journalistic sensationalism, not a real thing. 

2 hours ago, hoola said:

If the awareness is a quantum function

And what if it is clockwork or powered by wet string (both equally well supported)

2 hours ago, hoola said:

then each of the 3 has a 20mhz QComputr 

And where does that 20 millihertz come from?

2 hours ago, hoola said:

due to the monogamy principle of qm, only two are capable to entangle at a time

Entanglement happens between individual particles. It is a bit bizarre to use the rule that says it involves pairs of particles to claim it applies to entire “computers”

 

1 hour ago, hoola said:

 

check out Penrose/Hammeroff.

 

Check out the concept of “evidence”

 

36 minutes ago, hoola said:

No, I don't know of any researches in the field who has the same stature of Penrose...

1. Argument from authority

2. Penrose’s stature is as a mathematician and physicist

3. There are plenty of people of similar stature in the relevant fields

4. Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience even if done by scientists (there are lots of presedenti for this)

 

 

1 hour ago, hoola said:

quantum processes within photosynthesis

ALL chemistry is due to quantum processes

[Eise]

4 hours ago, hoola said:

well, if awareness is ticking along at 20mhz

20 mHz? 0.02 Hz? That means you are aware only 1 time in 50 seconds? (1/50 = 0.02).

I assume you mean 20 MHz, 20,000,000 Hz. But neurons cannot fire that fast. The individual components of the brain are, e.g. in comparison to computers, very slow (a neuron fires at a rate of about 6 Hz, computers are at a few GHz now). It is only due to the massive parallel processing in the brain, that it still can fulfill certain complex tasks in fractions of a second.

But it is interesting to note that the fastest reactions people are capable of, are not aware immediately, but often only afterwards (this is one of the aspects of sport training: to learn to react automatically on situations, because first becoming aware is just too slow). Of all the process in the brain, awareness is one of the slower ones. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Eise

[Bender]

12 hours ago, hoola said:

check out Penrose/Hammeroff. There is reasearch going on for some years now, that the quantum is required for consciousness, as regular synaptic electrochemical loops are too slow to maintain awareness...attention is being focused on the microtubules present in the cells that seem to have a quantum function, and at around a 20mhz clock freq...

So you are serious... <facepalm>.

Besides the fact that Penrose is no neurologist, and besides the fact that his highly speculative ideas about consciousness diverge quite a bit from the mainstream, you still misread his work. Did you actually read it yourself, or have you only read some popscience article?

11 hours ago, hoola said:

try to catch a fly in your hand next time you see one.  

I rarely succeed. So my awareness must at the very least be slower than a fly.

13 hours ago, hoola said:

the 3 I refer to is the three minds, reptilian, mammalian, human.

Humans are mammals (I can't believe I'm required to point this out).

And what about fish, birds, amphibians or invertebrates? 

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, hoola said:

the 3 I refer to is the three minds, reptilian, mammalian, human.

Psychologists moved away from this line of thinking, deeming it overly simplistic. See Triune Brain.

12 hours ago, hoola said:

Awareness is slow...?..try to catch a fly in your hand next time you see one.  

Go to Missouri in July. Huge horseflies, super humid environment, you can pluck them out of the air. First time I tried to swat one, I smeared it all over my arm. 

[MigL]

At least I got some useful information from this thread...

Don't go to Missouri in July !

[hoola]

 Bender- the biological end of the research is  Hammeroff, not Penrose.     Penrose wondered where in the brain such functions could occur, and Hammeroff suggested the place, specifically the microtubules in cellular skeletons. The collaboration is now based on research into that area. Yes, I have watched the lectures on utube by both Hammeroff and separately by Penrose. and not summaries.  i presume others in the forum have too, possibly yourself, and if i am inaccurate in some of my statements regarding what they report at lectures, i apologize. Maybe the frequency they calculated was 2 mhz, not 20 mhz...but the basic idea is fairly simple and easily stated......Yes, it is speculative to consider it in ourselves until you consider the evidence of the effect in plants and birds. If you are unaware of that, you might check that out first..phi for all..yes the psychologists may have "moved away" from the idea of the triune brain, but having worked with them and knowing a few of them well, I am quite aware of the deficiencies and trendiness of the field. 

[Strange]

Pensrose has always had a problem with consciousness arising in the brain (see his "Chinese Room" analogy for example; it is fundamentally flawed but in quite subtle ways). As such, this is just his attempt to find some "non-mechanistic" explanation. I'm not sure how quantum theory helps as it is still deterministic, even if probability plays a larger role than in macroscopic reactions. He should know this, but this is driven by his personal beliefs. Hence it is not good science.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Strange

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, hoola said:

yes the psychologists may have "moved away" from the idea of the triune brain, but having worked with them and knowing a few of them well, I am quite aware of the deficiencies and trendiness of the field. 

Knowing a few psychologists isn't the same as knowing what knowledge is supported by the mainstream. The reason scientists move away from a concept is because evidence points in a different direction, so the explanation isn't as well supported. The preponderance of evidence shows that the triune brain concept lacked sufficient explanatory power. Sorry, but this is what science does, it comes up with ideas and experiments with them until they're shown to be false or inadequate. Science makes corrections on the best available explanations for any phenomena based on the best available evidence.

[Strange]

On 24/07/2018 at 7:43 PM, hoola said:

false hope+false hope+false hope = hope -1

I am reminded of this, whenever I see this post:

 

[hoola]

well strange, I am glad that my topic has arisen a nice song out of the deal, instead or mere irritations. Thanks for the posting

[Scott of the Antares]

On 25/07/2018 at 12:51 PM, Eise said:

But it is interesting to note that the fastest reactions people are capable of, are not aware immediately, but often only afterwards (this is one of the aspects of sport training: to learn to react automatically on situations, because first becoming aware is just too slow). Of all the process in the brain, awareness is one of the slower ones. 

Hi Eise:) I would like to respectfully bring to your attention the case of genuine samurai and their practices that bring awareness above the ‘fastest reactions that people are capable of’.

There is an example of a true lineage samurai facing a person with a BB gun. The person fired the BB gun at the samurai and he slices the pellet in two. A university qualified sports scientist was asked how he managed this feat (she was present at the experiment) and she replied that she had not seen anything like this; if the samurai had waited to hear the gunshot, the pellet would have passed him by time he had began to react. She postulated that  the samurai was using a technique for awareness that was not reliant on standard sensory input, and that was beyond her understanding of the human body on a physical level. It sure sounds like mumbo jumbo to us westerners, but there may be something to this that we are not currently considering within the full remit of mechanisms of the universe:)

[Eise]

10 hours ago, Scott of the Antares said:

The person fired the BB gun at the samurai and he slices the pellet in two.

I hope you have references for this story.

Just speculating a bit in advance:

I've been practicing Aikido for many years. One of the exercises was 'reading the intentions' of your opponent, so you can react correctly in time. I can assure you, there are many bodily but subtle signals when somebody starts a movement. So a samurai might be able to react even before the gun was shot. It is not magic, it is practice (and talent, I suppose, I never made it to the black belt... ).

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Pensrose has always had a problem with consciousness arising in the brain (see his "Chinese Room" analogy for example; it is fundamentally flawed but in quite subtle ways).

Seems so. But because you corrected me elsewhere, now I correct you . The Chinese Room is from John Searle. But it is the case, that many people believe he has a point with it, and recently I saw an interview with him on Swiss Television, and Searle still adheres to it, even that I also think that it was definitely debunked by e.g. Hofstadter and Dennett in  'The mind's I'. Dennett therefore calls it a false 'intuition pump'.

BTW, I once hat a chance to have a small chat with Penrose, and he is really a very nice, bit excentric (in the positive sense) guy. And he is not very dogmatic. He clearly saw that his and Hammeroff's 'Orch-OR' theory is still a hypothesis, and definitely not a full blown picture of reality. He did not become angry when I confessed I did not so much believe in his theory. 

Edit: Now I got a +1. But it was there before my remark on Searle and Penrose was merged with my comment on the samurai. So whoever gave me the point, read if you still agree with the new part. Otherwise you can remove it again. (no please don't... ).

Edited July 27, 2018 by Eise

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, Eise said:

The Chinese Room is from John Searle.

Doh. Of course it is. I knew that. Honest.  

I would have given you a +1 on both posts if they had remained separate!

[Scott of the Antares]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I hope you have references for this story.

A friend who knows I am interested in Japanese and Chinese arts visited me and found this on catch up TV. It was all televised although I forget the program.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Just speculating a bit in advance:

I've been practicing Aikido for many years. One of the exercises was 'reading the intentions' of your opponent, so you can react correctly in time. I can assure you, there are many bodily but subtle signals when somebody starts a movement. So a samurai might be able to react even before the gun was shot. It is not magic, it is practice (and talent, I suppose, I never made it to the black belt... ).

Hey Akido is a great art:) have you read about the founders personal discoveries that led to the creation of this art (Morehei Ueshiba)? Under fire from enemy soldiers during the war, he would perceive flashes of light split seconds before bullets were fired at him. He developed this skill and applied it to punches and kicks etc. He believed that he was perceiving the intention of the enemy combatants! Crazy and unbelievable, but it also explains why he was never bested; he literally saw what they were doing before the physical action manifest! The slight problem is that Mr. Ueshiba had a natural gift that the rest of us do not!

I have been practicing Taijiquan under an authentic teacher for around 7-8 years and can personally attest to the bizarre nature of sticking, warding off and releasing which seem to have no correlation in western understanding, but certainly have tangible and real qualities. It is so difficult but at the same time so rewarding!

I am on grade 6/10 (10 becomes a teacher and then starts another cycle of 10 towards master, which resets another cycle of 10 grades ) ... It is a life long journey!)

[nevim]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

 

Edit: Now I got a +1. But it was there before my remark on Searle and Penrose was merged with my comment on the samurai. So whoever gave me the point, read if you still agree with the new part. Otherwise you can remove it again. (no please don't... ).

It was me. I gave it for the ‘reading the intentions of your opponent’, which I strongly agree with and have used myself.

Plus, I also like the edited post