tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post7384370346147895264..comments2023-10-21T08:48:37.363-07:00Comments on Zone-Reflex: The mystery of Life solved?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-74378975347583208422012-11-01T02:02:55.303-07:002012-11-01T02:02:55.303-07:00Andrulis work as a Theory of Life can be seen at h...Andrulis work as a Theory of Life can be seen at http://www.scribd.com/doc/107521682/Presentation-at-X-International-Ontology-Congress-Physis-From-Elementary-Particles-to-Human-NatureUllahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-52504370435842137182012-06-28T10:14:59.610-07:002012-06-28T10:14:59.610-07:00http://youtu.be/Tfi8BLca07M
The Secret Life of Vor...http://youtu.be/Tfi8BLca07M<br />The Secret Life of Vortices: Evolution and Destruction of Vortical FlowsUllahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-83641005915042622822012-03-23T12:35:32.653-07:002012-03-23T12:35:32.653-07:00Has a rather confused take on some other theories ...Has a rather confused take on some other theories of consciousness. appear to conflate quantum consciousness with epiphenomenalism. The assumption appears to be that any quantum states must be by-products of processes based on classical physics, suggesting a rather strange take on physics, and this is odder still because epiphenomenonalists tend to indignantly reject the idea of any quantum involvement. Another curious idea is the conception of persistence through time as the factor underlying consciousness. Awareness or record of lifespan to date is usually part of the contents of human consciousness, but it is another thing to say that this produces consciousness. A non-conscious computer only needs a clock to record how long it has been in existence. In a fashion reminiscent of twentieth century thinking cognition is frequently equated to (potential for) consciousness, while emotion or evaluation of sensory input is hardly mentioned. <br />http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/machine-consciousness-c285.htmlUllahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-3477675994481051042012-03-23T12:35:14.369-07:002012-03-23T12:35:14.369-07:00Machine consciousness. Can machines be murdered? T...Machine consciousness. Can machines be murdered? Tate, M.A. et al<br />'Consciousness and the Universe' emphasises the lack of depth of thinking that can be a hall mark of the functionalist approach to consciousness.<br />Assumption that (combining of) particular actions will produce consciousness; no argument is presented, conclusions are merely asserted. Computers/robots are making advances in mobility, face recognition and other functions. Do the authors think that a machine performing just one of these functions could become conscious. At any rate, their main emphasis appears to be concentrated on generating some magic out of the combination of different modalities that occurs in the brain, <br />Relating consciousness:combining of modalities has a certain plausibility in neuroscience, in that consciousness is correlated with the global gamma synchrony. It is possibly awareness of this arrangement in the brain that has suggested that combining a number of functions could produce consciousness, <br />A general relating problem is that the synchronisation of action spikes across billions of spatially separated neurons bears little resemblance to computing. Although functionalism is probably the dominant orthodoxy, there is now more awareness of the differences between computers and brains, The operation of the gamma synchrony could be digitally replicated, although this isn't really clear. No doubt a computer could in principle replicate such connections, but this leaves open the question as to whether the basis for consciousness relates to the connections as such, or the physical/biological structures allow them. This could be a subject of some discussion, <br />The working of human-made computers is fully understood, and provides no examples of structures that do not exist elsewhere in the universe without them producing consciousness. It is noticeable that while philosophy and psychology talk in terms of certainties with relation to the mind, the neuroscientific literature is hedged by 'perhaps' and 'could be'. The gamma synchrony is only a correlate of consciousness. Is it consciousness that produces the synchrony, visa versa or some interactive process between neurons and the brain-wide synchrony?<br />The core of the mind-brain identity concept is that mental states and neural states are identical. In a trivial sense this appears to be true of all theories of consciousness that are not dualistic, so that even a Penrose-Hameroff theory of consciousness could be argued to be a mind-brain identity theory. Thus Penrose argued that the mind was not identical to a computer rather than not identical to a brain.<br />In modern consciousness studies mind-brain theories tend to travel with a certain hidden agenda. The mind is identical to the brain as described by neuroscience text books. So far so good, except that when we read such a text book, there is nothing in it which either requires or could generate consciousness. We are presented with a closed information system from which consciousness is entirely missing. Incidentally an end chapter, which may be found in some more recent books, giving a round up of current theories of consciousness does not constitute an explanation of why consciousness is missing from the main text. The problem we have in conventional mind-brain identity theory is that the mind is claimed to be identical to a brain that, as described, has no requirement for consciousness and had no way of generating it.Ullahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-89583184874070203832012-03-16T00:56:24.535-07:002012-03-16T00:56:24.535-07:00It is important to understand how the physics of t...It is important to understand how the physics of test particle depends on the presence of parallel space-times sheets. Simultaneous topological condensation to all the sheets is extremely probable so that at classical level forces are summed. Same happens at quantum level. The superposition of various fields assignable to parallel space-time sheets is not possible in TGD framework and is replaced with the superposition of their effects. This allows to resolve one of the strongest objections against the notion induced gauge field. <br /><br />Entanglement has no interpretation in terms of everyday experience. You cannot perceive a state which is superposition of states in which Schrodinger's cat is dead and bottle of poison is open and Schrodinger's cat is alive and bottle of poison closed. Mathematically this kind of state makes complete sense but not at the level of sensory experience.<br /><br />The basic property of sensory perception indeed is that it makes state classical by state function reduction.<br /><br />Automatic consciousness is in TGD Universe a non-sensical notion. And also in the real universe: when a performance requiring learning becomes automatic it is not anymore a conscious performance. If there is still consciousness, it is at lower levels of the hierarchy, not ours, where things need not be automatic.<br /><br />This is a good example of how prevailing theories of consciousness - in this case computationalism - neglect even the most elementary facts about consciousness. Same applies also in particle physics. Seeing that which is - about which Krishnamurti talks a lot - is is very very important for a theorist;-). Too often theorists are unable to see anything from the shadow of their own gigantic ego!<br /><br />http://www.matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/03/proposal-for-microtubular-memory-code.html#c2424545831109299903<br /><br />http://www.matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/03/icarus-measures-light-velocity-for.htmlUllahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-84841885262653543302012-03-05T11:48:26.411-08:002012-03-05T11:48:26.411-08:00S. Kauffman on NPR blog 5.3:
The Evolution Of The ...S. Kauffman on NPR blog 5.3:<br />The Evolution Of The Biosphere And Econosphere Are Self Creative<br /><br />He seems to join the Gaia hypothesis? Look!<br /><br />Evolution may be the mysterious "antientropic force" that generates complexity, at least in the living world and, just perhaps, in the universe at large. (Although, of course, evolution is not a force at all.)<br /><br />The evolving biosphere and econosphere have both exhibited astonishing increases in diversity and complexity over time. One common biological ancestor diversified, we believe, into the millions of species we see today. Except for some extinction events, the diversity of species shows a steady increase.<br /><br />Similarly, the diversity of goods and production capacities 50,000 years ago across the globe might have been a few thousand. Now this diversity numbers in the billions.<br /><br />Why does this diversity increase? One view is that this process is just a "random branching, birth and death process." <br /><br />Here is the theory: consider a token "person" on an infinite-square lattice. At each discrete moment in time he takes one step north, and at random chooses to go one step east or one step to the west. This process iterates and the "person" performs a random walk, a well-studied stochastic process. Now let the single "person," divide occasionally into two "persons" at the same spot on the lattice. Call it a "birth process." Thereafter each "person" walks fully independently of the other. From time to time there are similar "birth" processes to "persons" walking. Now add "deaths" where "persons" die and disappear from the lattice. This is a random branching, birth and death stochastic process, well studied.<br /><br />On average, if births happen more frequently than deaths, the ensemble of persons will branch out on the graph in increasing numbers.<br /><br />This model is commonly in mind when considering the increase in the diversity of species, economic goods and production capacities. I think this view is deeply inadequate, if partially true.<br /><br />Instead, I want to suggest that biological and economic evolution are self-creative, supracritical and progressive.<br /><br />The heart of what I wish to say of organisms and businesses is that they both maintain their structure, evolve and literally create empty "Adjacent Possible" biological or economic niches. These new empty spaces are places where new organisms or businesses can come into existence.<br /><br />Life confronts us with something totally novel: its evolution is self-creative. It creates new niches without selection or intent. This process can be supracritical and progressive in its diversifying complexity.Ullahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-71606876484041318162012-02-24T03:37:55.065-08:002012-02-24T03:37:55.065-08:00http://www.livescience.com/18632-life-surprisingly...http://www.livescience.com/18632-life-surprisingly-thrives-deepest-spot-earth.htmlUllahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3904639295706642486.post-5441643452018665722012-02-24T03:35:59.982-08:002012-02-24T03:35:59.982-08:00http://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blo...http://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.htmlUllahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.com