Thank you. I assume that you're thanking me for pointing out and explaining that essentially all arguments against global warming can be shown to be deceptive and lacking in sound science and funded by Big Oil, and strangely, instigated by the same individuals who also argued against regulations of the tobacco industry. The implication, of course, is that if there were actually sound science against global warming, it would exist, instead of all the deceptive propaganda out there masquerading as science.

The conclusion: global warming is real, mankind contributes to it, and the science behind it is sound.

I will think about what you mean by that and get back to you later. I'm done for the day. Oh, and paramecium have no neurons - they are single celled organisms that can learn and have some semblance of memory.

Because by invoking emergence, you have explained nothing, and made things more complex. That's an indication that you might be on the wrong track.

How many neurons does a paramecium have?

I'm not sure whether you read the H20 articles on wetness, as opposed to quantum effects. H20 as it pertains to consciousness is the fact that it is unintuitive that it would be wet - i.e. the wetness is an emergent property. Or something like that. The point is, it's different than just amplification.

All that aside, I can only see the prerequisites for qualia as being a fundamental property of the Universe. In other words, I don't buy emergence, except in the sense that particular structures, such as the brain, amplify and harness it in feedback loops and so on.

Try adding the term consciousness to your Google search. It's a standard concept discussed with regard to consciousness.

Clarify. As in:

1. Amplification
2. The H20 Phenomenon.

Which?

Back to emergence after all. Ok.

Degrees of freedom mean nothing with regard to qualia, in my opinion. So do tell me, what is the magic that happens with an extra degree of freedom where there wasn't that extra degree of freedom before? You might as well say that miniature Charlie Chaplins are the extra sauce needed inside the brain for there to be qualia.

To be more precise, proto-consciousness would be the fundamental building block of qualia. That alleviates the Hard Problem somewhat, by stating that qualia is fundamental, right down to the core components of the Universe. From there, evolution merely harnessed that trait inherent in the Universe, and evolved structures which amplify and utilize it.

So then you're saying that the fundamental building block of consciousness is there all the way down.

Like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=R6fNPulyndcC&pg=PT82&lpg=PT82&dq=hameroff+proto-consciousness&source=bl&ots=YVoPflad-E&sig=Pf_X0ymAETqFeraIAoCQjsBsyz4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kDZYT_3vFdHIsQLLnNnJDQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=hameroff%20proto-consciousness&f=false

That's the thing. Emergence is bullshit. At least with regard to consciousness. Nature (evolution) merely found a good structure (the brain) to harness what was already there.

No, he does not. Do not confuse symbolic reflection with the fundamental building blocks of consciousness.


First of all, let's be clear. I am neither for or against the theory of microtubules. I think the theory is interesting. With regard to your assessment of my 'ordering' and what Hameroff said in the video I linked to, he was not discussing microtubules.

Secondly, and in answer to your question, why don't you dig up what Hameroff has to say about paramecium?

Finally, and in reference to the first quoted statement of yours in this post, do not confuse your brand of emergence with my ideas. Tell me, at what point does the emergence of consciousness occur?

"Observation" means to measure, which, in the most primitive form, I believe means to bounce a photon off of it (something like that). That's why to observe means to disrupt, because you have to interact with it.

But it's a little more complex that that. My take from it all is not to get hung up on a conscious being observing, and not to confuse that issue with the discussion here.

It's funny though, if you think of waves as intangible things, and particles as tangible things, and the interaction of particles as collapsing the waves, then what that means is things don't finitely exist unless interacted with, and I'm saying that wave collapse is the fundamental building block of consciousness, which is to say that existence (particles) vs. hypothetically existing (waves), is the building block of consciousness.

Something like that.

One of the biggest pet peeves of mine of all time: At least half (or more it seems) of the population on the Internet cannot spell "lose". Strangest thing.

So I've been watching and reading Penrose and/or Hameroff, and I've been somewhat fond of what they've been saying, but in my most recent foray into their ideas, it seems I'm hearing them say exactly what I suspect. It's this:

Consciousness (or more precisely qualia) is a fundamental component of the Universe. Even more specifically, they're saying (and I've said this as well in conversations with others), a conscious moment, or at least the fundamental building block of a conscious moment is the collapse of the quantum wave function.

So there you have it.

Hameroff is the only guy who "gets it" in this group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnS_cT8yLtU

It makes you wonder if the guy who interrupted him in the last part is a philosophical zombie.

I had a go at discussing consciousness in the Off-Topic forum, since this is the Politics and Society forum. I've never really posted there before, but now, after having watched it for a week or two, I can see its really childish. It's too bad the only reasonably intellectual discussion unrelated to Bitcoin must be shoehorned into the category of Politics and Society.

How to stop terrorism (the Middle East variety):

1. Stop fighting wars over there and get out of the Middle East.
2. Save a lot of money as a result.
3. Take a cue from Volkswagen's 268 mpg car and subsidize production of similar cars with taxes on less efficient cars.
4. Never buy oil from the Middle East again.
5. Watch the wealth of the Middle East disappear or watch them actually produce something other than oil.

And what, exactly? What is your point?

I assumed that you knew that we can't teleport a living organism. Googling quantum teleportation would answer that. But that's irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with assuming that teleportation could work. Here are the facts of the hypothetical scenario:

1. You are scanned and the position of every atom in your body is known.
2. You are reconstructed elsewhere.
3. Your original form is vaporized.

It's totally irrelevant if we can do it or not. Here's why: assume the process works flawlessly.

It's that simple. By assuming the process works flawlessly, you need not question the ramifications of the technology. Furthermore, I suggest you take up your personal issues with the scenario with well known thinkers on the subject of consciousness - not me.

You are wrong about being able to learn something about it if we can't do it. You totally miss the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is to get one thinking about consciousness in a certain way to allow them the possibility of having new insights into understanding consciousness. Unfortunately, some people, such as yourself, like to nitpick on nonessential aspects of the discussion.

They have. You have had books recommended to you. You have had a long discussion with me about it. You have had links to papers provided to you. You have had the specific term in question (qualia) defined for you. We have been discussing it for more than a week.


No ambiguity here as to what the definitions are. If you still can't get it, you have had books recommended to you.


Those aren't definitions. Those are questions that are natural to ask and at the heart of discussion with regard to consciousness. Asking them at least demonstrates on your part an increasing understanding.