A Speculative Theory on Consciousness

[Graviphoton]

I will do this in parts. First i want to investigate the theory of Transaction, by Dr. Cramer. I want it known, that i am serious about science, and any theory i use will be based upon quantum physical assessment.

 

A few things we need to know.

 

1) On the fundamental level, quantum systems do not act according to cause and effect. This rule essentially breaks down. This means there is no directionality to their flow of existence.

 

2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the laws being incomplete, cannot for one moment expect to explain all aspects of existence, including consciousness, which is certainly a quantum subject, dispite of any disagreement.

 

3) That consciousness is bound by quantum rules.

 

..................................................................................

 

Right...

 

Dr. Cramers interpretation says that before a collapse (or transaction as he calls it) is ever accomplished, a few processes are involved.

 

Part One - The Observer Disturbs and Creates

 

The observer effect directly relates to the ability to collapse the wave function through observation. Upon measurement of an electron, let’s say, it would quantum leap into a particle form. However, because observation is not the only way for the wave function to collapse, as decoherence is when superpositioned materials in wave-like probability states settle down into a single state through their environments with other particles.

 

For this reason, it is now said the observer effect isn’t all that special. It doesn’t end there for it though! Physicist Fred Alan Wolf PhD, says that we can even alter the past with our observations. Taking into account the Wheeler-Delayed Choice Experiment showed that a measurement on a photon that traveled through spacetime in more than one path, a measurement on the photon as it arrives earth would create a real past for it. This is because the observation deflates all the possibilities into a value of 1

 

Part Two - Faster Than What?

 

So the observations we make in everyday life might even be creating the world around us. Many take the idea seriously, such as Dr Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation. Dr Wolf has also promoted the use of the Delayed-Choice Experiment as evidence of backwards-through-time traveling waves creating the past, and even Fred Hoyle, Astorphysicist and mathematician made use of the idea in many of his thoughts.

 

Using the TI, he explains that reality could be built up on superluminal waves traveling through time in a sinusoidal manner, and have restrocausal properties.

 

First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector | S > that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state:

 

| O (t, 1) >

 

Which then moves to the future: t >1 When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time

 

<E(t, 2)|

 

The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude:

 

<E(t, 1)|O(t, 2)>

 

The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows.

 

This cannot be applied to a multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the Everett Interpretation and the Existential Interpretation, because there is no collapse of the wave function. There is still an observer effect, but one that is very different to a collapse of a system. Working with Everett’s Interpretation here, if an observer flips a coin ad observes a heads, she creates a massive split in reality, one that cannot be detected and beyond the threshold of experiment, shoots off our universe; this is a newly created universe. In the other universe, I would be observing a tails.

 

Part Three - Enter The Transactional Interpretation

 

A collapse of the wave function occurs, only when two quantum waves travel through time, one travels forward in time, and the other wave travel backwards through time; then the waves meet in the present and they multiply. This multiplication is called the collapse. The original wave can only multiply with it’s complex conjugate.

 

Multiplying two answers to obtain a single answer is common in everyday life. You might remember the mathematical formulae from school. Here are a few to example;

 

1. Force = mass x acceleration

2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength

3. Volume = area of base x height

4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height

 

Once they square, the 'transaction', as Cramer terms it, is complete. He feels that using these quantum waves helps in teaching how they work. It is after all, understandable. It is quite an elementary way of looking at it all.

 

Part Three - A Wave Passes Copenhagen

 

In the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is no answer for why macroscopic systems did not exhibit wavelike properties. It simply said, ‘’They are just too big.’’ Decoherence solved this problem for the existing matter around us, but can’t explain galaxy formation or star formation, and it stole much of the mysticism out of the observer. It wasn’t until developments in the turn of this century proposed models showing that the mind might be required for the long-sought after theory of everything.

 

But even if this is true, that’s another slash in the Copenhagen Interpretation, because it states that everything there is about the universe can never be explained, and there is a limit to what we can know, so it doesn’t exactly promote any a theory of everything. One thing it did manage to survive was the EPR-Paradox, originally designed to make quantum mechanics a flawed theory showed that quantum entanglement was possible. Neil’s Bohr the founder of the Copenhagen Interpretation in 1926 said that the instantaneous effects simply happened. They are observed to happen, and this is all that mattered.

 

But this didn’t satisfy why the effects of two entangled photons over great distances are resolved instantaneously. Why and how does this information travel so far and fast? This was one theory that was answerable with the Transactional Interpretation. One could say that the superluminal echo and offer waves move through time create the instantaneous effects – defined spins for example.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation is built up on five premises which have worked well with experiment:

 

(1) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the idea that pairs of "conjugate" variables (like position and momentum or energy and time) cannot simultaneously be measured to "perfect" accuracy, nor can they have well-defined values at the same time;

 

(2) Born's Probability Law, the rule that the absolute square of the wave function gives the probability (P=|psi|2=psi×psi*) of finding the system in the state described by the wave function;

 

(3) Bohr's Complementarity Principle, the idea that the uncertainty principle is an intrinsic property of nature (not a just a measurement problem) and that the observer, his measuring apparatus, and the measured system form a "whole" which cannot be divided;

 

(4) Heisenberg's Knowledge Interpretation, the notion that the wave function is neither a physical wave travelling through space nor a direct description of a physical system, but rather is a mathematically encoded description of the knowledge of an observer who is making a measurement on the system; and

 

(5) Heisenberg's Positivism, the principle that it isn't proper to discuss any aspect of the reality which lies behind the formalism unless the quantities or entities discussed can be measured experimentally.

 

But The TI gives answers which don't lead to multiversal idea's, which works well with the public and fellow physicists, because the theory of extra universes seems far too strange.

 

I shall leave it there for now...

[ecoli]

A few things we need to know.

 

1) On the fundamental level, quantum systems do not act according to cause and effect. This rule essentially breaks down. This means there is no directionality to their flow of existence.

 

2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the laws being incomplete, cannot for one moment expect to explain all aspects of existence, including consciousness, which is certainly a quantum subject, dispite of any disagreement.

 

3) That consciousness is bound by quantum rules.

 

You're going to have to explain how you arrived at these premises, or your conclusions are going to be inherently flawed.

[Graviphoton]

Ok

I will

 

1) On the fundamental level, quantum systems do not act according to cause and effect. This rule essentially breaks down. This means there is no directionality to their flow of existence.

 

2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the laws being incomplete, cannot for one moment expect to explain all aspects of existence, including consciousness, which is certainly a quantum subject, dispite of any disagreement.

 

3) That consciousness is bound by quantum rules.

 

...........

 

1)The first is simple quantum physics. It is known that the uncertainty principle limits a particle. Hawking can mathematically calculaye a photons path through space and time, moving at superluminal speeds, by manipulating the UP. Apart from that, particles have no specific arrow of time, meaning that going backward in time, and then going forwards, is in fact an inherent aspect of the matter. For reference

 

* Fred Alan Wolf ''Parallel Universe: 1985''

 

* Wheeler Delayed Choice Experiment ''1984 and 2001 in the ''Eraser Experiment''

 

2) Quantum Mechaincs is certainly incomplete. We still don't know how to answer for the mind, gravity, or even the simple age of the universe. We base current age results on Hubble knowledge, but we also know that this age depends on how the universe began, and because we don't know this, we can only keep to the original equations.

 

3) In relativity, we learn that anything to us that ever exists, is contained within our spacetime. That means that the universe is ''self-contained''. Anything that matters to spacetime is contained witin spacetime, so there is always some kind of interaction. Consciousness certainly exists within reference to spacetime, so therefore, it is subject to the same laws. Simple deduction.

[ecoli]

The uncertainty principle states that you cannot measure both the location and speed of a moving particle, because measuring one affects the other.

 

But you said that this "limits the particle"... please explain this terminology.

 

2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the laws being incomplete, cannot for one moment expect to explain all aspects of existence, including consciousness, which is certainly a quantum subject, dispite of any disagreement.

 

But, isn't your conclusion that consciousness is determined by quantum interactions?

 

Doesn't this become circular logic, when your conclusions appear in the premise?

 

 

Please note, that I'm simply trying understand why you believe quantum mechanics is required to explain consciousness. But, for example, there are plenty of other chemical and biological principles that can be sufficiently approximated without having to consider quantum mechanics. I am therefore skeptical that an explanation of the mind would require one, particularly because your post lacks the mathematics one usually sees when deducing quantum theories.

[bascule]

1) On the fundamental level, quantum systems do not act according to cause and effect. This rule essentially breaks down. This means there is no directionality to their flow of existence.

 

2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the laws being incomplete, cannot for one moment expect to explain all aspects of existence, including consciousness, which is certainly a quantum subject, dispite of any disagreement.

 

3) That consciousness is bound by quantum rules.

 

A few things we need to know:

 

1) Consciousness is a metaphysical construct and thus by definition cannot be subject to scientific inquiry or understanding. However, functionalists would argue that there's a direct mapping between brain activity and the content of consciousness... which seems to be assumed in your arguments. Therefore consciousness can be investigated vicariously by science by studying brain activity, provided you accept the tenets of functionalism.

 

2) The brain appears to be a classical system:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

 

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales ~10^{-13}-10^{-20} seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

[Graviphoton]

Not at all. Quite the opposite.

 

Instead, it can mean that mind need to incorporate, or surround matter capable of sustaining it. In this case, a humans brain is made up of 10^27 particles, and they build up the statistical network of the mind. We know the particles are equal to the psyche, simply because if you damage the brains configuration, you will flaw the psyche, and its abillity to function.

 

If particles do determine the quality of consciousness, then consciousness is bound by quantum rules, based upon the premise that particles have to follow quantum rules.

[bascule]

If particles do determine the quality of consciousness, then consciousness is bound by quantum rules, based upon the premise that particles have to follow quantum rules.

 

However, quantum effects do not enter into the brain's behavior, at least according to Tegmark. Just as we can model the behavior of billiard balls without resorting to quantum mechanics, we can model the behavior of the brain using classical laws describing chemistry and electric fields.

[pioneer]

The thing with human consciousness is we have two points of view at the same time. If one is not aware of this and assumed there is only one then you will get into the uncertainty area. For example, if someone slammed the door behind you, your body may jump before you are fully conscious of what the cause was. It may be a fraction of a second but the unconscious will react first, than the conscious will follow suit. If you assume one point of view, then that would mean you reacted before you were aware of the noise with cause and affect appearing to break down or reverse. With two reference they simply worked one then two with rational predictability.

 

Here is another experiment that show the different dual reference affect. Go to a horror movie and then have someone drop you off in the woods at night. This is extreme but will almost always work. What should happen is the imagination will start to overlay reality. There is uncertainty whether that is a bush or a wolf, whether that movement was the wind or the ax murderer. The uncertainty is also due to the two points of view. One is entering the sensory systems through the sensors, and the other is triggering the sensory cortex without having to enter the eyes, using the imagination. One may even start to feel terror, from within, with nothing in reality to cause this. But the reaction of the body can be so strong, it thinks this coming from outside. If we assume a single reference the uncertainty whether this is real or not is much higher. If we realize there is a rational and irrational reference at the same time, then even the terror has a logical explanation. The quantum models are based on the assumption of one reference. They are useful because it shows what can happen if we leave out one reference.

 

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may be an artifact of using one reference when we need to use two. Here is my theory. The electron is moving at about 1/15 the speed of light. Although the relativity is small, it does exist in a slightly different space-time reference than the more stationary nucleus, which is the standard for human reference. We will have a slight problem trying to track the electron is we assume only one reference, because there is no simultaneity to compare apples to apples. The result will be uncertainty in the one reference we use.

[Graviphoton]

However, quantum effects do not enter into the brain's behavior, at least according to Tegmark. Just as we can model the behavior of billiard balls without resorting to quantum mechanics, we can model the behavior of the brain using classical laws describing chemistry and electric fields.

 

Well, Tegmark is a pioneer. He introduced the Existential Interpretation of Quantum mechanics. But he is quite loose.

 

His interpretation has never really caught on, unlike the other interpretations. And, if this is what he claims, then consider this proposal i make, off the top of me head.

 

The human brain is the most complicated computer in the world. It can devise answers that no Boolean automaton can ever hope to comprise. The human mind, capable of answering fast numerical calculations, can also comprehend the world of morality and emotions; factors which a normal computer cannot evaluate, including intelligent thought. This intelligent thought builds up the outside world, where a human can just mention a name and make something real! Yes... just by naming a thing (or mindless ponderings), that thing becomes real, with shape and defined description.

 

The brain itself is made mostly of water, and this natural computer is just three pounds of gray and white matter, (gray matter is the most dominant). The human brain has thousands of millions of working components, and these little workers operate the entire body. In just one split second, the brain excites thousands of inter-connections, working our five senses of touch, smell, sight, taste and sound.

 

Our brains are made up of many components; one of which we have all heard of is the nerve cell called the neuron. They are so comparatively small; you could fit over 200 hundred of these tiny neurons in the head of a pin. The job of the neuron is to send and receive electrical signals which rush around our head. In short, these electrical signals are very important signals, and these signals make up reality. For this reason, perception creates reality as we know it; thus reality is built up on nothing but conscious experience!

 

The brain is therefore, the control system of the brain. It, without our conscious influences, keeps our pulse ticking and our heart pumping. The spinal cord itself is directly linked to our brains, and it is through our boney spine it is able to send a signal to the foot well under a second.

 

Functions such as movement and sensations are determined by a soft dual part of the brain called the cerebrum. These two soft hemispheres are like mirror images of each other. The right hemisphere controls movement, and the left controls sensations. White matter covers under the cortex, and its primary job is to carry nerve impulses throughout the body. Gray matter covers the brain, bridging the hemispheres by a tissue called the corpus callosum.

 

It turns out, after extensive neurophysiological studies, that the left hemisphere is most dominant, causing the usual production of right-handed individuals. Naturally, for those select few who are left-handed, the right hemisphere is most dominant, and for those who are ambidextrous, has certain equilibrium between both the right and left hemispheres, but usually even in ambidextrous individuals, the right side of the hemisphere is most dominant.

 

The right and left hemispheres have been mapped out with their own particular functions. For instance, the left is associated with speech, reading, writing and calculations. The right operates visual perceptions, arts and abstract thought. It is thus a creative side. The really amazing thing is that when one side is in use, the other switches off. This on-off function must operate in this manor, for anything to process correctly. If the two sides did not fluctuate like this, it would be impossible for us to think of two things at once.

 

Beneath the cerebral hemisphere, is the cerebellum. It is linked directly to the spinal cord. The cerebellum also has two hemispheres. It is associated with balance and muscular co-ordination. And going further beneath the brain, is the brain stem, which operates the heart, the lungs and the digestive system.

 

We are aware of only so much. The brain operates mostly unconsciously, surprisingly enough. Of what we can subjectively control is only the edge of the blade. The brain controls so much without the force of consciousness. This subliminal operation might have profound influences in the world, and we are now going to have a look at a few them.

 

If material, or corporeal damage is made to any of the Brains structure, such as the Pineal Gland, the Pre-frontal vortex ect ect, will cause a fluctuation in how the conscious operates, if it isn't made obsolete altogether.

 

This is what the conversation is premised on.

[bascule]

His interpretation has never really caught on, unlike the other interpretations. And, if this is what he claims, then consider this proposal i make, off the top of me head.

 

Actually, the interpretation that never caught on was Penrose's of the brain as a quantum mechanical system. Tegmark's interpretation of the brain as a classical system is one almost universally espoused by the neuroscientific community. Penrose's opinion has only seen widespread adoption in the new age crowd.

 

The human brain is the most complicated computer in the world. It can devise answers that no Boolean automaton can ever hope to comprise.

 

Why do you say that?

 

The human mind, capable of answering fast numerical calculations,

 

Compared to computers, humans are pathetically slow at calculations

 

can also comprehend the world of morality and emotions; factors which a normal computer cannot evaluate, including intelligent thought.

 

Cannot? Why?

 

The brain is therefore, the control system of the brain.

 

???

 

The really amazing thing is that when one side is in use, the other switches off. This on-off function must operate in this manor, for anything to process correctly. If the two sides did not fluctuate like this, it would be impossible for us to think of two things at once.

 

????????????????? WHAT?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The uncertainty principle states that you cannot measure both the location and speed of a moving particle, because measuring one affects the other.

No. The uncertainty principle would, in that case, be easily violated by measuring the properties of entangled photons -- you can measure one property in one photon and the other property in the other photon and then know each with great certainty, violating the uncertainty principle. That's not the case. Even a measuring device that somehow doesn't alter the photon at all cannot measure both properties at once.

[ecoli]

The thing with human consciousness is we have two points of view at the same time. If one is not aware of this and assumed there is only one then you will get into the uncertainty area. For example, if someone slammed the door behind you, your body may jump before you are fully conscious of what the cause was. It may be a fraction of a second but the unconscious will react first, than the conscious will follow suit. If you assume one point of view, then that would mean you reacted before you were aware of the noise with cause and affect appearing to break down or reverse. With two reference they simply worked one then two with rational predictability.

these so called "knee-jerk" reactions are (at least partially) controlled by a response through the spinal column, (like the pateller reflex) so complex brain processes don't even need to enter into it.

[Graviphoton]

Bascule

 

The brain is the most powerful computer in the world. It may be slow in calculations, unlike a computer, but the brain is still extremely powerful, and can operate tasks unlike a computer. It has the property of self reflection, for instance. This ability to self-reflect allows us to broaden the ability to comute emotions, thoughts and mindless ponderings. A computer in no way shapes up to this. And i very much doubt a computer can.

 

(and yeh... that was a typing mistake)

 

''The brain is therefore, the control system of the brain. ''

 

It was meant to say

 

'the brain is therefore the control system of the mind'

[bascule]

The brain is the most powerful computer in the world. It may be slow in calculations, unlike a computer, but the brain is still extremely powerful

 

The computing power of the human brain is effectively fixed by biology. The power of general purpose computers is increasing exponentially and there's no reason for us to expect that to change anytime in the near future, certainly not before computers exceed the raw power of the brain.

 

and can operate tasks unlike a computer. It has the property of self reflection, for instance. This ability to self-reflect allows us to broaden the ability to comute emotions, thoughts and mindless ponderings. A computer in no way shapes up to this. And i very much doubt a computer can.

 

Whether computers are functionally equivalent to humans now is a non-argument. Clearly they are not.

 

However, you also claim:

 

The human brain is the most complicated computer in the world. It can devise answers that no Boolean automaton can ever hope to comprise.

 

This is a much different assertion. Why can't "Boolean automatons" ever hope to, well, hope, dream, enjoy music, be creative, etc?

 

If consciousness results from brain activity, what's special about brain activity which is requisite for consciousness that sets it apart digital computers?

[Graviphoton]

''Why can't "Boolean automatons" ever hope to, well, hope, dream, enjoy music''

 

Because its a computer? Cold hardware, and not a biological system?

[insane_alien]

whats the difference? both perform logical functions you can model a brain in a computer(okay, current brain models are that of a fly but we're working on more complex ones as our computers get faster) so why can't a computer develop sentience?

[Graviphoton]

Because whatever form of life we have ever dealt with, is of biological sense, not silicon-based. We know that a silicon-based life would be highly improbable, and no computer system as of yet has displayed sentient qualities. I think any form of life must stay within the bounds of cells and genetic make-up.

 

Yes, there is a theory stating that consciousness is only built up on electrical signals, but consciosness in a wire? I really don't see how it is possible.

[bascule]

whats the difference? both perform logical functions you can model a brain in a computer(okay, current brain models are that of a fly but we're working on more complex ones as our computers get faster) so why can't a computer develop sentience?

 

Actually, the BlueBrain project has developed a computer model of the mammalian neocortical column (a structure with tens of thousands of neurons), which is widely speculated to be the foundational unit of consciousness:

 

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/page19093.html

 

A human brain has over a million neocortical columns.

 

Because whatever form of life we have ever dealt with, is of biological sense, not silicon-based.

 

So what?

 

I think any form of life must stay within the bounds of cells and genetic make-up.

 

Why?

 

Yes, there is a theory stating that consciousness is only built up on electrical signals, but consciosness in a wire? I really don't see how it is possible.

 

How is consciousness in a wire any less possible than consciousness in a lump of fat?

[Bignose]

Yes, there is a theory stating that consciousness is only built up on electrical signals, but consciosness in a wire? I really don't see how it is possible.

 

This is a classical logical fallacy -- an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't see how something is possible, does not in any way whatsoever mean that something is impossible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

Basically, you have to show some evidence that what you believe is impossible; your beliefs on the matter are essentially meaningless without evidence. You can have your strong opinions/feelings/intuitions about something, but that's all they are -- opinions.

 

In the 1890's I very much doubt that many people would have believed it was possible to transmit moving pictures and sounds into every single person's home, but obviously today that is common and done in multiple ways. Unless something can be proven to impossible (like by breaking a fundamental law of physics), the arguments from incredulity don't carry any meaning.

[Graviphoton]

Maybe i should have stated how electrolytes work, and how signals are actually sent about the body in under a second, or perhaps that only fleshy cells have been able to spark independant mobile matter. And that technology isn't biological. It can perform similar tasks but that is all. It doesn't have the necessery array of the building blocks of life, namely hydrogen, nigtrogen, oxygen and carbon. Its seems that life can only spark from these four elements under the right conditions, and using a catalysc, such as lightning. But otherwise, no, its more than speculation on my behalf. Artificial Intelligence is impossible.

[iNow]

And that technology isn't biological. It can perform similar tasks but that is all. It doesn't have the necessery array of the building blocks of life, namely hydrogen, nigtrogen, oxygen and carbon. Its seems that life can only spark from these four elements under the right conditions, and using a catalysc, such as lightning. But otherwise, no, its more than speculation on my behalf. Artificial Intelligence is impossible.

 

...only if one makes up a completely different meaning of the term and concept of artificial intelligence.

 

 

 

If you call a balloon a rock, we can then conclude that rocks are able to be twisted into animal shapes by circus performers.

[zule]

The really amazing thing is that when one side is in use, the other switches off. This on-off function must operate in this manor, for anything to process correctly. If the two sides did not fluctuate like this, it would be impossible for us to think of two things at once.

I have always heard that males are unable to do two things at the same time, but females are able>. Perhaps you can discover the reason for that using your theory.

 

Now, seriously, if that was true, how can a writer write with their left sidethe things he is imagining with his right one? How can a mathematician put on a paper what they are obtaining by their abstractions? How can we all function?

 

 

 

Yes, there is a theory stating that consciousness is only built up on electrical signals, but consciosness in a wire? I really don't see how it is possible.

 

I think that consciousness is mere biochemistry, I don’t know if you mean that by “theory stating that consciousness is only built up on electrical signals”, although biochemistry is much more than only electrical signals. And as I also think that biochemical reactions can be imitated by other chemical reactions, I believe than an artificial consciousness can be made.

 

I am not saying we could, nowadays, build something that resembled very much to our consciousness. We know so little about it… I am not even saying we can some day build something equal to our consciousness. For doing that, we would have to understand the functioning of our brain perfectly; and that is impossible, because the only tool we have for this task is our own brain. And to understand something, we need a much more powerful tool than the aim of study.

 

Summing up, I think that some day it would be possible to do “artificial consciousness" which resembled to our consciousness, but only a much more superior brain than ours could build a consciousness as the human one.

[Graviphoton]

Well, let's not be ignorant of the facts, while we wait for a revelation shall we? Let's all agree at least that it seems highly unlikely an intelligent psyche can inhabit a computer.

[zule]

Well, let's not be ignorant of the facts, while we wait for a revelation shall we? Let's all agree at least that it seems highly unlikely an intelligent psyche can inhabit a computer.

 

Which are those facts?

[Graviphoton]

That life as we know it, takes on biological forms. And only.