Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff

Expand Messages
  • mark hubey
    Well, it kind of opposes Szilard who said something like You cannot get anything for nothing, not even an observation to restate the SEcond Law of
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, it kind of opposes Szilard who said something like "You cannot get anything for nothing, not even an observation" to restate the SEcond Law of Thermodynamics. It looks like knowledge/information is free but losing it costs. 


      On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Anna <pantheon@...> wrote:
       

      <It must be expensive to get to the other side.>
       
      Sure, it takes your whole  life.
      Anna
       
      Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 8:17 PM
      To: Evol
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff
       
       

      Wasn't there some report that it takes no energy to encode quantum bits but that energy is required

      only to erase the bits? That was in response to quantum computation (to speed up today's computers). It looks like now, it takes energy to eradicate those memories from human microtubules. It must be expensive to get to the other side.


      On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:
       

      --- In mailto:evolutionary-psychology%40yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:

      > That intelligent men of the calibre of Penrose can believe such fantasy
      > twaddle astounds me. That Nils laps it up comes as no surprise whatsoever
      > sadly.

      DWZ:
      All reports of miraculous events can be subjected to a simple test suggested originally, I believe, by David Hume. You first assess the likelihood that the remarkabe event actually occurred, which usually would mean that basic laws of physics involving gravitation, momentum, etc., were violated. Next, you assess the likelihood that the event did not occur, that is, that the report was inaccurate or fraudulent, the reporter was self-serving, running a scam, insane, whatever.

      Almost without exception the second probability would exceed the first. A similar principle might be applied to a report such as the present case. What is the probability that Penrose actually believes this fantasy? And what is the probability that the report about Penrose believing it is inaccurate? Assessing probabilities no doubt is difficult, but I know where my bet lies!

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      mailto:dwzimm%40telus.net
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a828



       
      --
      Regards,
      Mark Hubey
       
      "Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person. "
      -- Kenyon College Math Department Web Page
       
       




      --
      Regards,
      Mark Hubey

      "Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person. "
      -- Kenyon College Math Department Web Page 


    • Anna
      Even black holes are unable to destroy all information. And each of us can be considered information. But what exactly survives? Perhaps an abstract. Which is
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Even black holes are unable to destroy all information.  And each of us can be considered information. 
        But what exactly survives? Perhaps an abstract. Which is ...?
        Anna
         
        Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 7:36 AM
        To: Evol
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff

        Well, it kind of opposes Szilard who said something like "You cannot get anything for nothing, not even an observation" to restate the SEcond Law of Thermodynamics. It looks like knowledge/information is free but losing it costs. 

        <snip>
      • Wade
        Yes Penrose does have some flaky views on a variety of subjects but I think it s a massive distortion of his position to suggest he believes anything quite
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes Penrose does have some flaky views on a  variety of subjects but I think it's a massive  distortion of his position to suggest he believes anything quite this silly.

          Don is quite right to reference Hume on this point. Hume's clarity of thought is quite breathtaking. For a lad of 16 to start a work, The Treatise that 10 years later had provided the foundation of modern thinking on so many areas of human understanding is truly astonishing.  One can clearly see the influence of Hume in the writings of some of the most clear and perceptive modern thinkers such as Dawkins and Dennett.

          Wade

          On 3 November 2012 23:40, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:
           

          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:

          > That intelligent men of the calibre of Penrose can believe such fantasy
          > twaddle astounds me. That Nils laps it up comes as no surprise whatsoever
          > sadly.

          DWZ:
          All reports of miraculous events can be subjected to a simple test suggested originally, I believe, by David Hume. You first assess the likelihood that the remarkabe event actually occurred, which usually would mean that basic laws of physics involving gravitation, momentum, etc., were violated. Next, you assess the likelihood that the event did not occur, that is, that the report was inaccurate or fraudulent, the reporter was self-serving, running a scam, insane, whatever.

          Almost without exception the second probability would exceed the first. A similar principle might be applied to a report such as the present case. What is the probability that Penrose actually believes this fantasy? And what is the probability that the report about Penrose believing it is inaccurate? Assessing probabilities no doubt is difficult, but I know where my bet lies!

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a828


        • hibbsa
          When eminent scientists reach a certain age and stage, they do us all a favour by offering speculations on those matters that - rationally or not - go to the
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            When eminent scientists reach a certain age and stage, they do us all a
            favour by offering speculations on those matters that - rationally or
            not - go to the heart of what most humans now and who have ever lived,
            look at the sky and wonder about.


            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Yes Penrose does have some flaky views on a variety of subjects but I
            > think it's a massive distortion of his position to suggest he believes
            > anything quite this silly.
            >
            > Don is quite right to reference Hume on this point. Hume's clarity of
            > thought is quite breathtaking. For a lad of 16 to start a work, The
            > Treatise that 10 years later had provided the foundation of modern
            thinking
            > on so many areas of human understanding is truly astonishing. One can
            > clearly see the influence of Hume in the writings of some of the most
            clear
            > and perceptive modern thinkers such as Dawkins and Dennett.
            >
            > Wade
            >
            > On 3 November 2012 23:40, Don Zimmerman dwzimm@... wrote:
            >
            <snip>
          • mark hubey
            Hume got something half-right by trying to do the wrong thing, more or less. Nothing else is remembered by anyone else. And he s only remembered because
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              Hume got something half-right by trying to do the wrong thing, more or less. Nothing else
              is remembered by anyone else. And he's only remembered because philosophers still
              hate scientists, and the fiction-readers more so.



              On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:
               

              Yes Penrose does have some flaky views on a  variety of subjects but I think it's a massive  distortion of his position to suggest he believes anything quite this silly.


              Don is quite right to reference Hume on this point. Hume's clarity of thought is quite breathtaking. For a lad of 16 to start a work, The Treatise that 10 years later had provided the foundation of modern thinking on so many areas of human understanding is truly astonishing.  One can clearly see the influence of Hume in the writings of some of the most clear and perceptive modern thinkers such as Dawkins and Dennett.

              Wade

              On 3 November 2012 23:40, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:
               

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:

              > That intelligent men of the calibre of Penrose can believe such fantasy
              > twaddle astounds me. That Nils laps it up comes as no surprise whatsoever
              > sadly.

              DWZ:
              All reports of miraculous events can be subjected to a simple test suggested originally, I believe, by David Hume. You first assess the likelihood that the remarkabe event actually occurred, which usually would mean that basic laws of physics involving gravitation, momentum, etc., were violated. Next, you assess the likelihood that the event did not occur, that is, that the report was inaccurate or fraudulent, the reporter was self-serving, running a scam, insane, whatever.

              Almost without exception the second probability would exceed the first. A similar principle might be applied to a report such as the present case. What is the probability that Penrose actually believes this fantasy? And what is the probability that the report about Penrose believing it is inaccurate? Assessing probabilities no doubt is difficult, but I know where my bet lies!

              Best regards,

              Donald W. Zimmerman
              Vancouver, BC, Canada
              dwzimm@...
              http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a828





              --
              Regards,
              Mark Hubey

              "Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person. "
              -- Kenyon College Math Department Web Page 


            • Julienne
              ... What if we lived centuries ago, and talked about stones falling from the sky? Or flying? Or computers? What if we just don t know yet what the laws
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 5, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                At 11:40 AM 11/3/2012, Don Zimmerman wrote:
                >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:
                >
                > > That intelligent men of the calibre of Penrose can believe such fantasy
                > > twaddle astounds me. That Nils laps it up comes as no surprise whatsoever
                > > sadly.
                >
                >
                >DWZ:
                >All reports of miraculous events can be subjected to a simple test
                >suggested originally, I believe, by David Hume. You first assess the
                >likelihood that the remarkabe event actually occurred, which usually
                >would mean that basic laws of physics involving gravitation,
                >momentum, etc., were violated. Next, you assess the likelihood that
                >the event did not occur, that is, that the report was inaccurate or
                >fraudulent, the reporter was self-serving, running a scam, insane, whatever.
                >
                >Almost without exception the second probability would exceed the
                >first. A similar principle might be applied to a report such as the
                >present case. What is the probability that Penrose actually believes
                >this fantasy? And what is the probability that the report about
                >Penrose believing it is inaccurate? Assessing probabilities no doubt
                >is difficult, but I know where my bet lies!

                What if we lived centuries ago, and talked about stones falling from
                the sky? Or flying? Or computers?

                What if we just don't know yet what the laws involved are?


                Julienne



                The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                Fidel Castro. January 2012
              • charles beck
                Hi Wade As a person with a background and career in financial matters What do you think of Richard Wolff s views on the reasons for the 2008 debacle and his
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 5, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                  Hi Wade

                  As a person with a background and career in financial matters

                  What do you think of Richard Wolff’s views on the reasons for the 2008 debacle and his recipe for dealing with it?

                  I have been trying to find his published papers on the topic and have had no luck.

                  What is his reputation academically?

                   

                  Charles Beck

                  Prof Emer

                  Psychology / Neuroscience

                  University of Alberta

                  Capitalism Hits the Fan and Q&A with Professor Richard Wolff

                  Capitalism Hits the Fan and Q&A with Professor Richard Wolff

                  With breathtaking clarity, renowned University of Massachusetts Economics Professor Richard Wolff breaks down the root causes of today's economic crisis, showing how it was decades in the making and in fact reflects seismic failures within the structures of American-style capitalism itself. Wolff traces the source of the economic crisis to the 1970s, when wages began to stagnate and American workers were forced into a dysfunctional spiral of borrowing and debt that ultimately exploded in the mortgage meltdown. By placing the crisis within this larger historical and systemic frame, Wolff argues convincingly that the proposed government “bailouts,” stimulus packages, and calls for increased market regulation will not be enough to address the real causes of the crisis - in the end suggesting that far more fundamental change will be necessary to avoid future catastrophes. Richly illustrated with motion graphics and charts, this is a superb introduction designed to help ordinary citizens understand, and react to, the unraveling economic crisis. Excerpt from capitalismhitsthefan.com (Click here to buy the DVD) Full Documentary 1 hour, 44 minutes.

                  Source:Free Full Documentaries [1hr 44m]
                  http://www.fulldocumentary.net/economics/default.asp?action=listing&id=1658

                   

                  ,_._,___

                • Don Zimmerman
                  ... DWZ: Indeed the future has always brought new scientific developments that nobody expected or predicted. People are inclined to imagine the future by
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 5, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...> wrote:

                    > What if we lived centuries ago, and talked about stones falling from
                    > the sky? Or flying? Or computers?
                    >
                    > What if we just don't know yet what the laws involved are?


                    DWZ:
                    Indeed the future has always brought new scientific developments that nobody expected or predicted. People are inclined to imagine the future by extrapolating in a straightforward way from current knowledge and technology that is alreadty in place, but cannot foresee coming breakthroughs and radical advances. Forecasts are made by extrapolating from what Kuhn called "normal science" without allowing for "revolutionary science."

                    So Leonardo da Vinci may have imagined tanks and flying machines, and all kinds of future inventions that actually came about, and Jules Verne may have thought about submarines, but neither of them could possibly have foreseen atomic weapons, lasers, electronic digital computers, or the mysteries of quantum entanglement, not even if their fabulous brains had functioned at full speed ahead 24 hours a day.

                    Best regards,

                    Donald W. Zimmerman
                    Vancouver, BC, Canada
                    dwzimm@...
                    http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                  • Nils K.
                    Dear Wade, dear All! Comments to your claims copied below: Penrose has no flaky view on any subject, Wade. On the contrary he is at the cutting edge when it
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 5, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Wade, dear All!

                      Comments to your claims copied below:

                      Penrose has no flaky view on any subject, Wade. On the contrary he
                      is at the cutting edge when it comes to the philosophy and physics
                      of the mind. But, not you, Wade, and not many others, can follow
                      his thinking. We are simply playing several divisions below Roger
                      Penrose, both when it comes to knowledge, talent, and intelligence.

                      And apropos Hume, if I remember correctly, he was a blank slater,
                      and so was a totally worthless and untalented philosopher in these
                      fields.

                      Wade, you do also mention Dawkins. He is also surprisingly
                      untalented when it comes to human behvior. He does not even
                      understand that we humans do have the extremely powerful religion
                      instinct. Dawkins is also incapable of thinking and writing
                      correctly when it comes to logic. He is becoming more and more of a
                      joke and scandal "philosopher" and activist. He cannot even use
                      statistics properly, turning much of his use of statistics into
                      pure bluff.

                      Like Hume, Dawkins is also a worthless philosopher in the fields
                      we are discussing here and now.

                      [COPY:]

                      Wade:

                      Yes Penrose does have some flaky views on a variety of subjects but I
                      think it's a massive distortion of his position to suggest he believes
                      anything quite this silly.
                      Don is quite right to reference Hume on this point. Hume's
                      clarity of thought is quite breathtaking. For a lad of 16 to start
                      a work, The Treatise that 10 years later had provided the foundation
                      of modern thinking on so many areas of human understanding is
                      truly astonishing. One can clearly see the influence of Hume in
                      the writings of some of the most clear and perceptive modern
                      thinkers such as Dawkins and Dennett.

                      *************

                      Best,
                      NKO
                    • Anna
                      This is not about new laws. This is about Hameroff’s claim that consciousness is not produced by brain, but brain is a mere outlet for it. If this is
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 5, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        This is not about new laws.  This is about Hameroff’s  claim that consciousness is not produced by  brain, but  brain is  a mere outlet for it. If this is true, then consciousness  is  an operator who is also an operation.  Thus consciousness would be  God.
                        God who makes distinction ( such as you or me or a stone or a table) and at the same time becomes the distinction he makes.
                         
                        Anna
                         
                        Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:21 PM
                        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff
                         
                         

                        --- In mailto:evolutionary-psychology%40yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...> wrote:

                        > What if we lived centuries ago,
                        and talked about stones falling from
                        > the sky? Or flying? Or
                        computers?
                        >
                        > What if we just don't know yet what the laws
                        involved are?

                        DWZ:
                        Indeed the future has always brought new scientific developments that nobody expected or predicted. People are inclined to imagine the future by extrapolating in a straightforward way from current knowledge and technology that is alreadty in place, but cannot foresee coming breakthroughs and radical advances. Forecasts are made by extrapolating from what Kuhn called "normal science" without allowing for "revolutionary science."

                        So Leonardo da Vinci may have imagined tanks and flying machines, and all kinds of future inventions that actually came about, and Jules Verne may have thought about submarines, but neither of them could possibly have foreseen atomic weapons, lasers, electronic digital computers, or the mysteries of quantum entanglement, not even if their fabulous brains had functioned at full speed ahead 24 hours a day.

                        Best regards,

                        Donald W. Zimmerman
                        Vancouver, BC, Canada
                        mailto:dwzimm%40telus.net
                        http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.