form_srcid: Thought Provoker
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.97
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Thought Provoker
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Thought Provoker%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2007/04/17 20:17:14, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi all, Excuse me while I take some time to mope in my beer. I just said goodbye to Telic Thoughts after about 6 months of posting there. BTW, I have a BS Electrical Engineering with an MBA. I put myself down for BS Science. Don't get me wrong, as ID Proponents go, the TT bunch are pretty intelligent and most want to be open minded. You see, I like to think I am pretty good at getting to the heart of issues and pointing them out (my engineering training). I think I did a pretty good job. I bent over backwards to put it in terms they could embrace by accepting all base ID assumptions (even Dembski's "math"). To no avail. If it didn't support Theism it wasn't a "science" they could find acceptable. I know better than argue with anyone about their faith, but I thought that maybe with a little open-mindedness and a firm declaration it's about science and not religion, that maybe, just maybe I could make a dent. Oh well, pass me another beer, will ya? Regards, Thought Provoker |
| Date: 2007/04/17 20:32:26, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Stevestory, What you say is true. I was able to learn a lot from them. I enjoyed myself. A few of them I would like to call friends. It was just becoming obvious I had done that all I could. It was best I just leave. Whether it makes sense or not, I am frustrated they couldn't learn more from our exchanges. |
| Date: 2007/04/17 20:40:12, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Flint, With two degrees in Science and a degree in Humanities I would think you could figure it out for yourself. Sorry, couldn't help myself. |
| Date: 2007/04/18 07:16:37, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Kristine - thank you for that very warm welcome. You are a girl after my own heart. I too was disgusted in my schooling and did a lot of thinking for myself. BTW, my schooling started in the '60s. I am still thinking for myself though. |
| Date: 2007/04/21 20:30:29, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, I got introduced to ID and Panda's Thumb from the Dover trial. I am not sure why an Electrical Engineer with a small company to run got hooked on this, but I did. I have convinced myself the ID issue will be like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Is this the dawning of another Dark Age or a new age of enlightenment? IMO, the DI people aren't stupid, they are desparate. I agree the ignorant masses are still ignorant, but watch out when they start gathering torches and pitchforks. Hopefully, this explains why I still keep an eye on the subject. Provoking Thought |
| Date: 2007/04/21 23:11:18, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Skeptic, You missed the point. Even after the devastation at Pearl Harbor and losses from every other major engagement (Java Sea and Coral Sea) the Americans still had a significant carrier force for the Midway encounter when they should have had practically none. If they lost Midway, we would have been ready for the next battle, and the next, and the next... Eventually, one of these battles would have been the turning point of the war. Japan simply could not win a war of attrition against the United States. Think about it. Tiny Japan, mostly agrarian, with remains of feudalism against the giant United States’ capitalism with all kinds of factories (consider the automobile factories alone), an extensive train system with large rivers and an obscenely long coastline. It wasn’t “if” it was just a matter of “when” the United States was going to win. Yamamoto predicted six months. He was right. Considering the fact Pearl Harbor’s dry docks were left intact on Dec 7th, taking a whole six months was almost shameful for the United States. Sorry if I stole your thunder Lenny, but I am an old-time war gamer. Which reminds me, the United States has won Midway in any realistic replay I have participated in or witnessed. I liked the movie too and we were, indeed, lucky to do as well as we did but it would have taken a lot of unluck to for us to lose. Remember the Japanese had to protect their transports. They were the ones attacking a fortified island that had guns and planes of its own. Our two carrier task forces had surprise. |
| Date: 2007/04/22 00:04:22, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Lenny, If you didn't catch my earlier hints, I am 50ish (ok, ok, I am over 50). Have you ever had the "pleasure" of playing GDW's Drang Nach Osten and Unentschieden? Talk about tiny cardboard pieces. I describe it as WWII, Eastern Front with the original cast. I forget the pilot's name, but they had a special, individual counter for him because, historically, he was such a good ace. So, to rub it in for Skeptic, the Japanese generally lost Midway one of two ways, either the player was too aggressive and got his (no women played, we all smelled too bad) transports sunk or lost in detail by getting the lead carrier group crippled so badly it forced a retreat (as happened in the real battle). I suppose it's possible for someone could play the Americans so poorly the Japanese would win. There have been multiple times at conventions where the side that can't possibly lose, does. I never played Midway at a convention and at home we were too evenly matched. It's been fun reminiscing, thanks.  |
| Date: 2007/04/22 11:47:20, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Robert, I suspect you ran into the same thing I did. Dr. Dembski is very good at dropping pearls of "wisdom" that hint at a substantial argument. For example, Dr. Dembski uses terms like "Telic Properties in Nature" in situations where he needs non-religious cover. His fingerprints are all over something called "Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis" that could be considered an exploration of the possibility of intelligence being embodies an all of nature. As an engineer, I have had to deal with many PhD types. Practically all of them have trouble putting things into terms that can be understood by a layman. For some, it is an honest inability and requires a lot of work to help them help you. For others, it is because they, themselves, don't know what they are talking about. For those like Dr. Dembski, it is cleverly intentional, IMO. He is not dumb, but even he can't maintain the subterfuge for people determined to look for substance behind the fancy words. However, it works very nicely on people who want to believe what he is saying is true. Rather than tell IDers they don't know what they are talking about, I provoke them into thinking for themselves and ask them to explain to me their thoughts in their own words. Very few ID proponents can do that. Those that do distance themselves from Dr. Dembski with the possible exception of Salvador T. Cordova. |
| Date: 2007/04/22 12:29:50, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank, Now that I am done embarrassing myself about my stereotypical bias about "PhD types" I wanted to respond to something you brought up. I probably heard of ID prior to Dover. I vaguely remember a Seattle-based think-tank arguing that the St. Helen's volcano aftermath provided scientific "proof" supporting a young earth. I also heard about what was going on in Kansas. Dover provided a one-stop-shop opportunity for evaluating the latest creation-science arguments. Yes, Dover was an obvious loss from the start (I found the verdict anticlimactic), but what struck me was that with a difference cast of characters, the creationists could have won Dover. I will spare you the details of why I think that (unless you are interested). The other thing I noticed was the "Big Tent". People who normally wouldn't give each other the time of day were coming together to fight a common enemy. Why? Because they are getting desparate. G.W.Bush set a new standard for ignoring "reality-based thinking" along with a disregard of ethics in government. It is my impression, the next time the pendulum swings right it will be too late to do anything about it. We need to negotiate the peace treaty now, while we have the upper hand. The alternative is to annihilate the enemy completely, which I doubt we can do. |
| Date: 2007/04/22 16:44:01, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Lenny, There were two main problems for the defendants in the Dover case. One problem was that the book Of Pandas and People was obviously a creationist textbook. The other problem was that the defendants were guilty as ####.  I believe the defense strategy was to present the Dover's school board's actions as stupid, not illegal. A possible strategy is based around the Santorum Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment "It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." Senator Santorum was (is?) one of Pennsylvania’s senators. It was entirely reasonable for Dover to respect the "sense of the Senate" and "prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." Especially when that sense was articulated by a home state's Senator. There is the added benefit of a controversy as to whether the amendment was binding or not. Dover could decide to error on the side of caution and comply with the amendment. Like it or not, Intelligent Design was/is arguably one of the more likely "evolution" subjects of which students would be unprepared "to be informed participants in public discussions." This all combines for arguing a well-meaning board making available supplemental textbooks on the subject of ID for science students. The purpose of these textbooks would be to understand the arguments being made, not to make the arguments themselves. What got the Dover school board in trouble were their obvious motives and public pronouncements. A more careful board wouldn't have distributed flyers explaining "their side" of the debate and wouldn't have got caught in their own lies. They would have also agreed to the Science Teachers' suggested wording change in addition to agreeing to having the books in the library and optional. The defendant’s lawyers needed to argue ID's science status was a moot point. Per the Santorum Amendment, Students must be prepared to participate in discussions about evolution which, inevitably, includes unscientific arguments. It is beyond a district court Judge's reach to question the "sense of the senate". The non-activist Judge Jones might have been forced to reluctantly agree the Dover school board actions were misguided bit, lacking evidence to the contrary, weren't illegal. I suspect there might be a lawyer or three that can explain the gaping holes in my thinking. |
| Date: 2007/04/22 19:00:13, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Lenny, While I hope you are right, I beg to differ with you. I watched the Ohio situation pretty closely (since I live there). I would be surprised to learn it reached the inside of a courtroom. Maybe I am wrong and please let me know if I am. For Georgia, I presume you are talking about the Cobb sticker case. That was mostly decided on the second plank of the Lemon Test (religious motive). I think we should count ourselves lucky Cobb settled the case (religious organizations were begging them to take their money and continue the appeals). Were you aware that Justice Clarence Thomas feels it would be constitutional for states to declare a state-wide religion? Scalia is a little less radical than that, but not much. This right-leaning Supreme Court just held up a federal law banning certain medical procedures regardless of the risk to a pregnant woman's health. Why are you so certain they would refrain from deferring to the "sense of the senate" (like they did for Guantanamo prisoners) and reject an "explain (not teach) the controversy" argument in a school board case? |
| Date: 2007/04/22 19:26:37, Link 69.40.245.12 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Skeptic, You wrote...
Ok, respectifully, I am interested in your opinion as to the following... The 1st amendment reads... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Would you say it was constitutional or unconstitutional for congress to make a law declaring the national motto "In God we Trust"? Please note the amendment says "religon" not "a religon". |
| Date: 2007/04/22 20:07:46, Link 69.40.245.12 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Skeptic, Please read the words again... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Simple sentence deconstruction. Did the law respect something? yes What was the object of respect? The establishment of religion in the United States. It isn't the "establishment" that is the prohibited act, it is the "respecting". But we don't let little things like the plain meaning of the words bother us, do we? |
| Date: 2007/04/22 20:35:40, Link 69.40.245.12 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi Chris...
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The courts can't protect against School Boards being stupid. If they want to teach their students that there are only nine planets and Saturn is the only one with rings around it or that PI is exactly 22/7, there is nothing the courts could do about it as long is there is no evidence of religion. I don't know why you guys are so certain we will always prevail. Even at Dover, with all the coverage and evidence a large percentage of people voted to retain the old school board. We may be right, but that doesn't mean we are popular. And, bluntly, I don't trust the current Supreme Court one bit. |
| Date: 2007/04/22 21:04:07, Link 69.40.245.12 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi Lenny,
I don't know if I believe this or not, but thanks for trying to cheer me up. Going to bed now. Good Night and God Bless  |
| Date: 2007/04/23 10:11:24, Link 12.129.98.129 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Skeptic, We don't have to "go on and on" about this, you have an untenable position. You are saying we are misinterpreting the separation of church and state by reading the 1st Amendment as it is plainly written. In 1956, during the Red Scare, the Supreme Court gave a wink and a nod to the new Motto. Read their opinion. It is clear they are reading the first amendment the same way I am. They had to use some pretty twisted rationalization to explain how the motto was neither respectful nor disrespectful, but neutral. It was hogwash then, it is hogwash now. However, it has allowed people like you to imply something different. By your logic what would be unconstitutional about changing the pledge of allegiance to... "By the grace of God I pledge allegiance to the flag..." or better yet... "By the grace of God, who we worship above all, I pledge allegiance to the flag..."? |
| Date: 2007/04/23 17:41:28, Link 12.129.98.129 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi skeptic, Excuse me, I was rushed at lunch when I wrote this. What a meant to say was...
Does that help mitigate your indignation enough for you to respond now? |
| Date: 2007/04/30 20:50:20, Link 216.85.52.179 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Lenny, There are more of "them" than there are of "us". Historically speaking, we don't have much reason for optimism. Personally, I would rather play to our strength. "Let's discuss this logically. How many of you believe kangaroos once lived in the Middle East?" Provoking Thought |
| Date: 2007/04/30 22:28:56, Link 216.85.52.179 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Lenny, You wrote
It is all in how you draw your "line". So, how many confirmed atheists were elected? How is the federal support for stem-cell research going? Have we amended the partial-birth abortion law to include a womens' health exception yet? Provoking Thought |
| Date: 2007/09/22 23:28:40, Link 71.31.149.203 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Steve, When MikeGene and I get into heated discussions it is usually over what I call "Shield Bashing". A lot of people at Telic Thoughts (including MikeGene) take the tactical position of claiming to be oppressed. It makes it easier to complain. Bradford takes it to an extreme. He appears to be fairly knowledgeable but often uses that knowledge to be bombastic. BTW, I don't know if you are aware of this. I think MikeGene split off from the "ID community" to form Telic Thoughts because of fundamental disagreements with people running ARN. Personally, I think there was a spark of earnest interest in doing science when Darwin's Black Box came out. I agree with Dawkins' review that DBB was better, in this regard, than Edge of Evolution. I suggest the ID MOVEMENT decided to go the PR route. Behe changed his definition of IC and the one ID Hypothesis that came close to being scientific, EAM, was abandoned. In short, I think you are pressing some hot buttons with MikeGene. Yes, he is biased in blaming the “ID critics” for shutting down explorations but note the title bar declaration “Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design. Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.” The word “independent” is obviously intentional. If there is an “ID Community”, MikeGene and Telic Thoughts don’t consider themselves part of it. You may also want to look at their “About Us” description. There is some history there. |
| Date: 2007/09/22 23:34:29, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Jam, You wrote...
Is that a problem for you? :D Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year. She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges. You might also find her political leanings surprising. (let's just say she has never been a big fan of our current president). |
| Date: 2007/09/23 00:07:49, Link 71.31.149.203 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Dave, Out of curiousity, am I still on the "moderated list" for Uncommon Descent? |
| Date: 2007/09/23 10:20:29, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
|
Hi Keiths, You wrote...
Joy is quite capable to defending herself. MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions. If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use. Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life. It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity. This is from Berkley Lab's Research News. The article is titled Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed.
link And, of course, there is the Orch OR model of consciousness put forward by Sir Rodger Penrose and Dr. Hameroff....
from the peer reviewed paper Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness DNA strands are used to build artificial quantum computers. IMO, the question gets turned around. What makes you think life ISN'T dependent on quantum superposition and superconductivity? |
| Date: 2007/09/23 10:46:56, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi JAM, You wrote...
I agree, Joy's expertise appears to be more in understanding physics as opposed to biology. And, yes, she does have an unusual philosophical outlook (which she admits to). What she brings to the table is the thought that it may be time to quit treating the different scientific disciplines as separate. Biologists can't continue to ignore General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This concept is what drives Sir Rodger Penrose. Combining General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics results in some interesting conclusions. While many people don't like the implications, Penrose's OR quantum interpretation is testable and is being tested. So far, it has never been falsified. Penrose also provides verifiable equations, E=h/t may become the next E=mc^2. Penrose is making a specific proposal for the timing of quantum superposition collapse. It is obvious that Penrose has convinced himself (and others) of the solidity of the basic OR quantum model long ago. Once he considered it a given, Penrose started to look in its implications. Its implications to the study of consciousness is potentially very profound. However, like Joy, Penrose wasn’t as strong in biology as physics. This resulted in Penrose teaming up with a scientist who has dedicated his professional life to the study of consciousness, Dr, Hameroff. The Orch OR model of consciousness was introduced about 10 years ago. Joy claims to be a “professional fool”. Sometimes listening to fools allows you to think outside artificial barriers of thinking (“outside the box”). P.S. for those interested here is the link to www.hameroff.com |
| Date: 2007/09/23 12:16:44, Link 71.31.149.203 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Thank you SteveStory for setting me straight on which Dave is which. Hi Afdave, I took a look at your website. I didn't find it all that unusual or convincing. I am not unfamiliar with discussing things with YEC proponents. I usually enjoy my interchanges with Salvador Cordova. I also find Walt Brown (www.creationscience.com) interesting. As far as your question about what it would take to convince a skeptic. I am of the opinion that if an omniscient, omnipotent and timeless being wanted me to believe in it/him/her I would. I would have no choice. It is obvious the God of the Old Testament is less than perfect (unless, of course, you engage in liberal interpretation). The God of the New Testament is more spiritual. But, for some reason, the Council of Nicaea (about 325 AD) decided to equate the man called Yeshua Ben Yosef with God. That is your problem, not mine. I happen to believe this traveling rabbi had interesting ideas, but he was one of many. Chances are we wouldn’t have heard of him if it wasn’t for a Hellenistic Jew named Shaul (we know him as Paul). For all his earnestness Yeshua’s brother, Yaakov (James) had continued the Jewish tradition of preaching only to Jews. However, Shaul was knowledgeable of the philosophies of Socrates (no one knows the Truth), Plato (Platonic world versus real world) and Aristotle (successful political leaders accommodate the majority). Shaul suggested the Jewish cult should start teaching GENTILES! Yaakov and his lieutenants reluctantly agreed (only Shaul’s branch of the cult was permitted to do it). The Roman’s destroyed the Jewish Temple in 70 AD. This was extremely disheartening for the Jews waiting for the imminent return of the Meshiach. It was prophesized that the “anointed one” would rule from the Temple. No temple, no Meshiach. All the Jewish people from all the various cults (including the followers on Yeshua Ben Yosef) returned to mainstream Judaism. This pretty much caused the collapse of all the Meshiach sects except for one. The gentiles within the followers of Yeshua Ben Yosef found themselves leaderless and unwelcome by mainstream Jews. The gentiles continued to believe in the “imminent” return of their messiah. They have been waiting for two millennia now. As to what it would take to convince me to believe something, it would probably involve starting with presumptions not based on the Bible. Do I believe that an Ultimate Observer might exist? Yes, but I don't see empirical evidence of that (it is mostly a philosophical argument). Do I believe than an Ultimate Engineer might have designed the Universe? Yes, but my impression is that the Ultimate Engineer would make the Ultimate Invention that wouldn't require the engineer turning hidden cranks and pushing special buttons. |
| Date: 2007/09/23 12:39:54, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi JAM, You asked...
I may be wrong about this. But this was included in the acknowledgement...
And the paper has been very much reviewed, and criticized, by the likes of Tegmark, Grush and Churchland. But like I said, I may be wrong. Maybe MIT Press and Mathematics and Computer Simulation are less particular than I gave them credit for. |
| Date: 2007/09/23 13:01:34, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi JAM, You wrote...
I remember something about you being banned because you tried to use an alias after being banned previously. Can you provide a link to the first time you were banned? I have seen some biased use of sending comments to the memory hole (some of mine have ended up there). I have only known of one person being banned, that was you. Zachriel (an ID critic) pressed MikeGene pretty hard about why. The answer was in reference to your subterfuge. I have seen some pretty vocal critics on Telic Thoughts that didn't get banned. Nick Matzke makes regular appearances there. I have dared MikeGene to simply ask me to leave when the going has gotten tough between us. He has not done so. I am of the opinion that I would not stay where I am not welcome. |
| Date: 2007/09/23 13:55:06, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
|
Hi JAM, Thank you for the opportunity for me to expand my understanding of Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR. You wrote...
Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules. I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness. To the quote "In cat visual cortex, MAP-2 is dephosphorylated when visual stimulation occurs (Aoki and Siekevitz, 1985)." You responded with...
The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics. Retrocausality is practically a given. Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states. If you are not familiar with Libet, his experiments show a half a second time period of electrical brain activity prior to a conscious decision being made. Libet's experiments have caused a stir in the study of consciousness. Playing professional tennis and hitting a fastball should be a physical impossibility. One answer is that we are helpless observers watching our bodies perform while deluding ourselves with false memories. Another is that consciousness is a result of orchestrated quantum effects interconnected in both space and time. Dealing with time as just another dimension is a given in the study of General Relativity. The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment. Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's. As to direct experimental results... I recently found this...
Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the EPR Paradox |
| Date: 2007/09/23 21:45:31, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi creeky belly, You wrote...
I am going to guess what you mean by "way too long". Max Tegmark suggested the brain so wet, warm and noisy that it would force an almost immediate decoherence. Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time. The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small. The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass. Here is a paper from Hameroff discussing the timing of consciousness. It includes discussions on Libet, cutaneous rabbit and the “color phi” phenomenon. These scientific observations support the idea that consciousness transcends time on the order of 100s of milliseconds. Hameroff describes how and why the quantum effects in neural microtubules organized in dendritic structures for processing could and would account for these observations. You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds. Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally? |
| Date: 2007/09/23 23:16:24, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E. Thanks for your comment. You wrote...
I understand time to be just another dimension like the three spatial ones. This is the lesson from General Relativity. Each point in Minkowskian Geometry (Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers) consists of four complex coordinates. Things get interesting in Minkowskian Geometry. For example, the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line. This is what happens in the Twins Paradox, it becomes a geometry problem. The space traveling twin takes a shortcut. All of this might be just an interesting mathematical exercise except for the scientific verification. Flying planes East and West around the Earth shows General Relativity (i.e. Minkowskian Geometry) is reality. Special Relativity was incomplete. The universe has an inertial frame of reference with time just being one of the four dimensions. The EPR paradox (which has become a given quantum property) demonstrates interconnected effects over space/time. When merged with General Relativity, the effects cross both space and time. If time is a “qseudo quantity” then so is length. You may not want to know my opinion on the alleged existence of “particles”. Bringing all the sciences to bear to the fundamental question of consciousness suggest explanations that we otherwise wouldn’t consider. For example, interconnected effects across time and space. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 07:22:36, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E, You asked...
Where Dawkins and I are different is that I embrace Gould's NOMA. I consider philosophical questions distinct and separate from scientific ones. Philosophy is about searching for Truth (capital "T"). Science is about determining useful knowledge. I believe the Oracle of Delphi was both accurate and prophetic with the proclamation that no one is wiser than Socrates. I don't know the Truth, do you? While the search for Truth is important, I generally find it more enjoyable, and fruitful, to discuss science. At Telic Thoughts, I have a habit of suggesting... Let's do Science! See my response to creeky belly for that. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 11:03:25, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi creeky belly, You wrote...
Have you heard of Bucky Balls? These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms. They demonstrate EPR-like effects. The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls? Penrose offers it is due to their mass. By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994. While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd". I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects. The Schrödinger's cat paradox refuses to go away by itself. Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it. Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror. The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.
You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it). However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years. I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons. Do you know of any? I will look for them. Penrose argues against Strong AI. That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm. And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms). Here is Planet Math's analysis of it. Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random. Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects. Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 11:13:44, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi JAM, I suggest the burdon of proof in this situation is yours. Joy and MikeGene aren't any more capable of finding the comment(s) that caused the problem than you are. You indicated that you were banned three times. MikeGene and Joy have offered explaination as to why they automatically enforced the ban on your two aliases. If you want to continue to try and make a case, then it is up to you to make it. I already asked you once to provide a link to the first instance so I could judge for myself. You have yet to do that. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 12:15:29, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E., One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing". This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions. I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy. I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case. I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort. I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so. Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise. The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM. Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 14:16:19, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi JAM, I will deal with the politics first and then with the science in another comment. You wrote...
Actually, I have loudly questioned MikeGene about whether or not Telic Thoughts lives up to its About Us declaration multiple times. I have even pointed out the biased treatment of the Smokey verses Bradford discussions. I felt you two were opposite sides of the same coin. MikeGene estimates Telic Thoughts has banned a total of 10 people (7 ID critics and 3 ID supporters) in the 2.5 years of its existence. You (with your three aliases) were apparently one of them. Telic Thoughts is a pro-ID blog. In case it has escaped everyone's notice, I seem to be the only one who seems to care whether or not people from After the Bar Closes choose to participate in discussions at Telic Thoughts. Jam, it is obvious that you have a biased opinion of Telic Thoughts. Based on your actions here, I would have to agree it would not be in Telic Thoughts best interest to reinstate your privileges. If you actually wanted to come back, you missed an opportunity. It would have been relatively easy to convince me that you were unfairly treated if you tried. Had you done that, I would have tried to make the case that Telic Thoughts could use more balanced discussions. Besides, I liked "Smokey". I might have had a chance, but now, with the way you chose to approach this, I don't see how it would be remotely possible. As it is, it looks like the shield bashing games will continue. After the Bar Closes will be smug in their presumption that ID proponents are arrogant and unreasonable. Meanwhile, Telic Thoughts will be smug in their presumption that ID critics are arrogant and unreasonable. Everyone can continue to be comfortable with their stereotypes reconfirmed. Oh well, I tried. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 14:31:24, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi Albatrossity2, You wrote...
Which side is arrogant?
To me, this isn't about taking sides. It is about provoking thought. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 16:08:46, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Afdave, You wrote...
Thank you for responding, but I am not interested in arguing religious apologetics. I might have a minor interest in hearing your scientific opinion on who were the builders of Stonehenge and, much earlier,Göbekli Tepe. I am presuming you embrace the general biblical timeline that suggests that on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 601st year of Noah's life, the only people left alive on Earth were aboard the Ark. Making it 2344 BC. Which is a neat trick considering Stonehenge was supposed to have been built before 3000 BC and Göbekli Tepe around 9000 BC. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 16:34:26, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi SteveStory, My apologies. I had intended on making it clear that it was a false hypothetical. In fact, I found my welcome to After the Bar Close to be very warm (Kristine offered me "Shimmies"). As penance, I took the time to find my first post here (it was the career survey). That turned out to be ironic, because as it happens I wasn't too happy at the time with Telic Thoughts. Here is what I wrote...
The interesting part was the reply by someone named SteveStory...
link I decided to give Telic Thoughts another chance. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 18:57:22, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi K.E.,
I am coming to the conclusion that the String Theory is the result of the last desparate holdout in a belief that matter is made up of something solid. I happen to think the Universe is one giant wavefunction existing in Minkowskian space/time Geometry. Something like a Mandelbrot Set. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 20:05:39, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
|
Hi creeky belly, Thank you for your reasoned responses. You wrote...
um.... E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work. "The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." link Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size. deBroglie's equations are... p = hk E = hw When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.
My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic. You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness". For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself. Penrose quit waiting. He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all. The final piece was consciousness. Are you familiar with the story behind Penrose Tilings? It started out as a mathematical curiosity. At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern. This is known as periodic tiling. However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed. One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible. The race was on to find examples. The first example had 20426 tile shapes. To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”). This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things. Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered. You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic). An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings. The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.
Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how. He isn't a biologist. But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics. The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality. Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia). |
| Date: 2007/09/24 20:23:26, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Jam, You asked...
Here is one of many hits I found using the term "cytoskeletal microtubules" in a google search. It was from The Journal of Cell Biology where they were distinguishing cytoskeletal microtubules from flagellar microtubules. This is one of those situations where being quiet would have been the smarter choice. I had presumed that "Smokey" wasn't just arguing for argument sake. Now I am not so sure. |
| Date: 2007/09/24 22:05:37, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Jam, You ask...
It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here. That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue. You continue to make reference to Penrose. Penrose is not the biologist, Dr. Hameroff is. To avoid confusion, let me quote from a paper written by Dr. Hameroff and NOT the physicist Penrose... III. The neural correlate of consciousness a. Functional organization of the brain Most brain activities are nonconscious; consciousness is a mere “tip of the iceberg” of neural functions. Many brain activities—e.g. brainstem-mediated autonomic functions—never enter consciousness. While consciousness is erased during general anesthesia, nonconscious brain EEG and evoked potentials continue, although reduced.[xiv] ... Membrane-based neuronal input-output activities involve changes in synaptic plasticity, ion conductance, neurotransmitter vesicle transport/secretion and gap junction regulation—all controlled by the intra-neuronal networks of filamentous protein polymers known as the cytoskeleton. If simple input-output activities fully described neural function, then fine-grained details might not matter. But simple input-output activities—in which neurons function as switches—are only a guess, and most likely a poor imitation of the neuron’s actual activities and capabilities. To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly. As single cells with no synaptic connections, how do they do it? Pondering the seemingly intelligent activities of such single cell organisms, famed neuroscientist C.S. Sherrington (1957) conjectured: “of nerve there is no trace, but the cytoskeleton might serve”. If the cytoskeleton is the nervous system of protozoa, what might it do for neurons? IV. The neuronal cytoskeleton a. Microtubules and networks inside neurons Shape, structure, growth and function of neurons are determined by their cytoskeleton, internal scaffoldings of filamentous protein polymers which include microtubules, actin and intermediate filaments. Rigid microtubules (MTs) interconnected by MT-associated proteins (MAPs) and immersed in actin form a self-supporting, dynamic tensegrity network which shapes all eukaryotic cells including highly asymmetrical neurons. The cytoskeleton also includes MT-based organelles called centrioles which organize mitosis, membrane-bound MT-based cilia, and proteins which link MTs with membranes. Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004). Actin is the main component of dendritic spines and also exists throughout the rest of the neuronal interior in various forms depending on actin-binding proteins, calcium etc. When actin polymerizes into a dense meshwork, the cell interior converts from an aqueous solution (sol state) to a quasi-solid, gelatinous (gel) state. In the gel state, actin, MTs and other cytoskeletal structures form a negatively-charged matrix on which polar cell water molecules are bound and ordered (Pollack 2001). Glutamate binding to NMDA and AMPA receptors triggers gel states in actin spines (Fischer et al 2000). Neuronal MTs self-assemble, and with cooperation of actin enable growth of axons and dendrites. Motor proteins transport materials along MTs to maintain and regulate synapses. The direction and guidance of motor proteins and synaptic components (e.g. from cell body through branching dendrites) depends on conformational states of MT subunits (Krebs et al 2004). Thus MTs are not merely passive tracks but appear to actively guide transport. Among neuronal cytoskeletal components, MTs are the most stable and appear best suited for information processing Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved. MTs are cylindrical polymers 25 nanometers (nm = 10-9 meter) in diameter, comprised of 13 longitudinal protofilaments which are each chains of the protein tubulin (Figure 8). Each tubulin is a peanut-shaped dimer (8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm) which consists of two slightly different monomers known as alpha and beta tubulin, (each 4 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm, weighing 55,000 daltons). Tubulin subunits within MTs are arranged in a hexagonal lattice which is slightly twisted, resulting in differing neighbor relationships among each subunit and its six nearest neighbors (Figure 9). Thus pathways along contiguous tubulins form helical pathways which repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows (the Fibonacci series). Alpha tubulin monomers are more negatively charged than beta monomers, so each tubulin (and each MT as a whole) is a ferroelectric dipole with positive (beta monomer) and negative (alpha monomer) ends.[xxiii] In non-neuronal cells and in neuronal axons, MTs are continuous and aligned radially like spokes of a wheel emanating from the cell center. MT negative (alpha) ends originate in the central cell hub (near the centrioles, or MT-organizing-center adjacent to the cell nucleus) and their positive (beta) ends extend outward to the cell perimeter. This is the case in axons, where the negative ends of continuous MTs originate in the axon hillock, and positive ends reach the pre-synaptic region. However dendritic cytoskeleton is unique. Unlike axons and any other cells, MTs in dendrites are short, interrupted and mixed polarity. They form networks interconnected by MAPs (especially dendrite-specific MAP2) of roughly equal mixtures of polarity. There is no obvious reason why this is so—from a structural standpoint uninterrupted MTs would be preferable, as in axons. Networks of mixed polarity MTs connected may be optimal for information processing. Intra-dendritic MT-MAP networks are coupled to dendritic synaptic membrane and receptors (including dendritic spines) by mechanisms including calcium and sodium flux, actin and metabotropic inputs including second messenger signaling e.g. dephosphorylation of MAP2 (Halpain and Greengard 1990). Alterations in dendritic MT-MAP networks are correlated with locations, densities and sensitivities of receptors (e.g. Woolf et al 1999). Synaptic plasticity, learning and memory depend on dendritic MT-MAP networks. Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists. Vassilev et al (1985) reported that tubulin chains transmit signals between membranes, and Maniotis et al (1997a, 1997b) demonstrated that MTs convey information from membrane to nucleus. But MTs could be more than wires. The MT lattice is well designed to represent and process information, with the states of individual tubulins playing the role of bits in computers. Conformational states of proteins in general (e.g. ion channels opening/closing, receptor binding of neurotransmitter etc.) are the currency of real-time activities in living cells. Numerous factors influence a protein’s conformation at any one time, so individual protein conformation may be considered the essential input-output function in biology. Here is a diagram and video showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing. Here is a video that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components. They one the DNA was just for structural support. After all, how could something made up of only four bases be important? |
| Date: 2007/09/24 22:43:59, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||||
|
Hi creeky belly, You wrote...
Did you read the link I provided? p = momentum = mass * velocity "size" neither volume nor the cube-root of volume has anything to do with momentum. From the career survey results, I would have thought a majority of the people in this forum would be explaining this obvious physics property to you. Was I too polite? YOU SCREWED UP! LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED. Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"? "m" stands for MASS!
Do you see temperature in deBroglie's equations too?
It does describe and explain the reality of quantum effects. Did you happen to read Penrose's book The Road to Reality? It came out in 2004. It is 1100 pages of step by step explaination of his detailed view of reality. Penrose is 65 years old. He has been knighted. He knows he will be proven correct. This book should dissuade those tempted to suggest he got lucky again. After all, Penrose was right about Black Holes and aperiodic tilings. Why should he be correct in suggesting the obvious implications of deBroglie's equations are correct?
A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 09:43:52, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of The Future One of the biggest obstacles to accepting ID hypotheses as scientific endeavors is their appeal to magic-like mechanisms. But what if a magic-like aspect in nature has been around so long that we don't see it for the magic it is? I suggest what we think of as randomness is, for all practical purposes, magic. Let's take a hypothetical coin, we flip it, it comes up heads. We note that. We flip it again, it comes up heads again, We note the pattern (two heads in a row). We flip it again, it comes up tails. The pattern is broken. Why? Is it "magic"? We don't think of it that way because we are conditioned to expect flipped coins to "randomly" come up heads or tails even when we flip them in the exact same manner. The same would be true if we used a perfectly repeating mechanical device to flip the coin. Assuming the coin was perfectly balanced, the results would not be a pattern. A perfectly repeatable (deterministic) setup is impossible because quantum level effects are non-deterministic. However, are quantum level effects random? Before we try to answer that question, let's go back to flipping coins. This time we will flip three special coins. These special coins have an interesting aspect. They appear to respond to what is called. If "heads" is called at least one of the three coins will be heads. If "tails" is called, at least one of the three coins will be tails. After thousands and thousands of tests, the coins have never failed to do this. Further more, when "heads" are called all three coins will be heads one out of four times (not one out of eight). When "tails" are called all three coins will be tails one out of four times. At no time are all three coins heads when "tails" is called and at no time are all three coins tails when "heads" is called. The thousands of consistent and repeatable experiments convinces even the most skeptical of scientist that the special coins are, indeed, special. More experiments are preformed. It turns out that calling or "heads" or "tails" can be delayed until after the coins have landed (as long as no peeking is involved). Further experiments show that three different people can flip the three coins separately. This exposed an very interesting property of the special coins. If the three people all call the same (either "heads" or "tails") then at least one of them gets what they call and, sometimes, all three of them get what they called as would be expected. However, if they don't call the same, sometimes none of them get what they call (happens one out of four times). Once all the permutations are cataloged the special nature of the coins become even more apparent. The state of the third coin can be absolutely predicted after the first two coins are called and exposed. For example, imagine the coins flipped and on the table with each of the three people covering it with their hands. The first person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is tails. The second person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is also tails. The third coin will ALWAYS be heads regardless of what the third person calls. The experiment is reran, but this time the first two people call "tails" and their coins show tails again. The third coin will ALWAYS be tails regardless of what the third person calls. Note that the third coin's state depended on what the other two people called NOT the whether the coins were heads or tails. These special coins are special indeed. What natural explanations would explain the coin's behavior? Here are the non-metaphysical possibilities… 1. The third coin "magically" predicted the future. 2. The third coin "magically" changed state at the last moment 3. The coins are "magically" linked to people's consciousness The magic described here is basically the reality of Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states. Instead of calling heads or tails, the observers decide which quantum state (e.g. horizontal polarization) to measure. This magic-like effect has been experimentally tested and verified countless times. Its reality is not in question. Even though quantum effects are non-deterministic they aren’t random. You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design. First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?). Recently, it was discovered that photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics. Photosynthesis is an extremely old biological mechanism. DNA is being used as building blocks for quantum computers and the DNA structure and “code” is optimal for processing search algorithms. DNA/RNA defines what is or isn’t considered a living organism. Finally, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness hypothesizes that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in microtubules. Microtubules are instrumental in living structures and organisms that appear to be aware of their surroundings. Personally, I have serious criticisms concerning the apparent motives and past actions of the ID Movement, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all challenges to orthodox thinking as simply an appeal to the metaphysical because it may turn out that the magic is real. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 09:55:03, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, When SteveStory popped in at Telic Thoughts as "Steve" and started asking reasonable, yet probing questions, I was encouraged. I think it is good to look at things from various points of view. Once I realized who he was and that he had started a thread discussing Telic Thoughts here, I attempted to try and inform the discussion. SteveStory indicated he was looking for something a little more substantial than the typical creationist fluff. I suggest that I have offered such. However, this has caused this thread to steer significantly off-topic (which, of course, happens all the time). I also have got to get some real work done in real life. Meanwhile, I hope I have managed to provoke some thinking here. And, as a bonus, I started another thread called The Magic of Intelligent Design. It is a repost of something I had presented at Telic Thoughts. It provoked some thinking there (both for and against). Maybe it could do the same here. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 10:37:23, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creeky Belly, Thank you for providing the link. It is the best description of the GHZ states I have seen yet. I will probably use it in the future. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 11:40:28, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi blipey, You asked...
A lot of serious scientists have asked the same question. Here is a quote from the link Creeky Belly supplied... "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr "Quantum wierdness" and "spooky action at a distance" are terms used by the likes of Einstein. Even I am not too sure how seriously I take this stuff. For example, I have added "aka Quantum Quack" to my login name when posting to science blogs. It is reality. Whether or not it is a joke may depend on your Theism/Atheism status. "Hah! Let them try to figure THIS out." |
| Date: 2007/09/25 14:01:26, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Continuing... As C.J.O'Brien indicated, the reason quantum mechanics appears weird is because our intuition is based on our experiences in the macro world. What if the quantum world is the one that is normal and it is the macro world that is weird? Our intuitions perceive matter as solid objects obeying the laws of Newtonian physics operating in a universe of Euclidean geometry. The concept of time is like a frame by frame movie with each frame containing a copy of the entire 3 dimensional universe. In 1905 Einstein came along and started messing up this view. I suggest the implications of what was started 100 years ago are just now beginning to fully manifest themselves. Einstein proposed Special Relativity as a temporary, and incomplete, explanation of scientific observations. The idea was to suggest multiple frames of reference to deal with the constant speed of light. No one frame of reference was supreme, everything was “relative”. Dealing with the Twin Paradox was done by mumbling something about accelerations. This allowed for keeping the Euclidean geometry view of the universe. General Relativity presumed a fixed, inertial frame of reference. This model was also consistent with scientific observations. It accomplished this by suggesting an entirely different geometry for the universe, Minkowskian Geometry (Minkowski was one of Einstein's teachers). Space/time has four complex dimensions and is curved. The shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line. The Twin Paradox is solved as a geometry problem (the traveling twin takes a short cut). So we had two mathematical models that were consistent with scientific observations. Which one was correct? While General Relativity was pretty much presumed correct, when an experiment was conducted with a jet flying around the world (both East and West), no doubt remained. Minkowskian Geometry is reality, Euclidean geometry is not. So what is the big deal about Minkowskian Geometry? In Euclidean geometry the change in distance (dL) can be calculated by taking the square-root of the sum of the squares. IOW, dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. In Minkowskian Geometry, the equation becomes dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2. The fourth complex dimension, time, contains the square-root of negative one. Squaring it results in a negative. This is how the traveling twin can take a shortcut. Things get interesting at the speed of light. In the case of a photon traveling from a star light-years away to a detector on Earth, the Minkowskian distance traveled is ZERO! This brings us to quantum mechanics and GHZ states. There is no mystery or even magic in understanding how three separate photons could be entangled in Minkowskian Geometry. Heck, they can be thought of as the same photon! EPR paradox, superposition, etc all melt away once you combine General Relativity with Quantum Theory. However, particles lose their identity in the process. There are two main prevailing quantum interpretations, Many Worlds and Copenhagen derivatives. Penrose’s OR model is a Copenhagen derivative. With Penrose, everything is a wavefunction. For example, a “photon” is a standing wave in Minkowskian Geometry. Decoherence is the Objective Reduction (OR) of the wavefunction (other Copenhagen derivatives will refer to this as the waveform collapse). Many Worlds is a metaphysical/mathematical construct that is offered to allow for the dogmatic resistance against giving up the idea that materialist particles are operating in an Euclidean universe. Richardthughes provided a link supporting a mathematical model. Old habits die hard, but they do die... eventually. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 17:00:11, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
|
Hi BWE, You wrote...
No apologies necessary. I don't take my anonymous pseudonym that seriously. You wrote...
We are talking about dr-putting-pepper-on-boxing-gloves, right? I am a very vocal critic of the ID Movement. I am appalled by how Dembski is using his intelligence to manipulate people who earnestly believe his BS. Nothing would delight me more than to watch Dembski squirm at having a new scientific hypothesis emerge that diverges from strict "Darwinism", but doesn't support the existence of his personal God. Chances are some ID Scientists would get some credit. Imagine Dembski’s dilemma if that would happen. 
First of all, I am an engineer, not a scientist. I like making models. I like figuring things out. I got curious with ID during the Dover trial (btw, the verdict was anti-climatic for me, it was that obvious). In some ways, Behe appeared to have a spark of an actual idea. So I starting investigating. I started out searching through Behe's and Dembski's stuff but quickly got banned from UD. This is when I got hooked up with Telic Thoughts. Joy may be insane, but she knew all this stuff. Between internet searches and reading things from Stephen Hawking and Penrose and Hameroff, it has clicked in my engineering mind. I have presented this on several science blogs. Let's just say the reception wasn't conducive for furthering conversation. Associating it with ID isn't that hard. ID proponents have a very flexible definition of "Intelligence". And, to them, design practically means "not random". My ideas are supportive of MikeGene's front loading. MikeGene supports it by letting me Guest Host on Telic Thoughts. That irritates a lot of the religious Culture Warriors (I am clearly an Atheist in their eyes). It is pro-science. Best of all, it provokes thinking on both sides. Why not? |
| Date: 2007/09/25 19:02:42, Link 71.31.149.203 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, As to Einstein's opinion on an interial frame of reference; From a paper titled Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether? "In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the “absolute world”. The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski’s absolute world concept and Mach’s ideas on rotational movements..." To my statement "The fourth complex dimension, time, contains the square-root of negative one." You wrote...
You might want to read Penrose's The Road to Reality. Penrose provides hypothetical geometries that could have been "real". Using complex numbers for dimensional quantities isn't a problem. Actually, not using complex numbers makes things unrealistic. Otherwise, you end of trying to segment things artificially in an attempt to avoid negative square roots (like you did above). Complex numbers are no more artificial than irrational numbers. There is no reason to be afraid of complex dimensions. On page 413, Penrose explains the space-like equation is... dl^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 He also indicates that the orientation of the complex numbers is arbitrary. Therefore, the time-like equation is... ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ...which makes it easier to deal with things that stay inside the null cones (you called them "light cones"). The value of "ds" is equivelent to a watch or a clock. This is why the solution to the Twin Paradox (Penrose calls it the "clock paradox") is easy in Minkowskian geometry. BTW, if you are suggesting their is no interial frame of reference, how do you explain the Twin Paradox? The problem looks the same to both Twins. Each twin is standing still in his/her frame of reference and the other twin is the one moving. Why are the results different?
Say that three times fast. Better yet, say it in terms the listening audience can understand. I think they may figure out you aren't saying anything that contradicts what I said. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 20:30:36, Link 71.31.149.203 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Continuing... Combining General Relativity with Quantum Theory isn't too controversial by itself. Qetzal correctly pointed out this doesn't explain much, yet. And blipey's question about the magic of randomness is still unanswered. Since we don't generally zip around at light speed nor deal with things at the sub-atomic level, this isn't very disturbing, yet. With maybe the exception of thinking about about that wave/particle distinction. However, this is just the beginning. The DEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS has yet to build up a full head of steam. Arguing about whether photons are waves or particles is practically academic since photons are massless. The Copenhegan school of thought was that photons started out as waves and collapsed into particles when appropriate. At the time, the alternative was to take a wait-and-see attitude. Even when electrons where shown to exhibit wave/particle duality, they still are strange enough and small enough to accept as possible. Ions? Well... Some people started to get nervous and got creative. Everett came up with the idea of alternative realities being constantly created, the Many Worlds interpretation has born (1957) Not many people liked the idea. Most still held onto the Copenhegan school of thought, others continued to wait for a better explanation. When full fledged molecules (e.g. Bucky Balls) were shown to be both a particle and a wave, the Many Worlds interpretation started getting a lot of supporters (even if they had to hold their noses to do so). The alternative was to totally embrace the idea that there is no such thing as particles, just wavefunctions. As an electrical engineer, this isn't that strange. A finite electrical square pulse can be thought of as a sum of multiple sine waves. And it is more than just thinking of it that way, a square pulse IS the sum of multiple sine waves which can be separated using electrical filters. Once you get over the loss of particles, understanding quantum effects becomes easier. The dual slit experiment is a piece of cake. Two slits, interference pattern. One slit, particle-like behavior. GHZ state? Again, no problem. The wave(s) are interconnected in Minkowskian space/time. All observations and states are directly connected to each other and state changes occur wherever and WHENEVER they are needed. Continuing this line of logic forces one to realize that ALL quantum effects are interconnected in Minkowskian space/time. And since time is just another dimension, the interconnection occurs across all space and all time. This makes the entire universe (space and time) one large wavefunction in Minkowskian geometry. Think of a Mandelbrot Set. Here is one ithat claims to be as large as our universe. And that is just one complex dimension with a very simple function. Are we having fun yet? I mention the Mandelbrot Set because it illustrates something that is non-changing yet chaotic. In the dimension of time, it would give the illusion of randomness. I suggest there is no such thing as natural occurring randomness. For a long time science was comfortable with Newtonian determinism. The idea was that if the position and velocity of every particle could be known for a given time then everything could be calculated for the future and the past. This is similar. Things only look random because they can be extremely complicated. I still haven't got to the ID part yet, but I think I need to break here before going on. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 21:25:34, Link 71.31.144.62 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
continuing... Hearing no objections from my last comment (I waited a whole five minutes), I will presume everyone understands and agrees that quantum effects are interconnected both in space and time. The first thing about this that starts smelling like ID is the concept of a teleological universe. The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent. And, yes, I said that with a straight face. You may not consider it a very aggressive purpose, but it is a purpose and it is better than anything other ID proponents can forward without suggesting some intent of a designer or designers. The point is that the universe must have a consistent wavefunction with no discontinuities from the beginning to the end of time, or it wouldn't exist (see Anthropic principle). The wavefunction is purposeful design. I don’t know who or what designed the wavefunction. Since I embrace Gould’s NOMA. I am of the opinion we will never be able to find out via empirical methods. However, to those inclined to believe in an omniscient, timeless designer we will call God for a lack of a better name, this provides a mechanism by which such a designer could operate. Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete. One wild idea is that life will bring an orderly end to the universe because some stupid scientists manage to create a naked singularity in their lab. If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction. While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible. MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature. Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 21:46:09, Link 71.31.144.62 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E. You wrote...
If you are not careful, people might get the impression you understand and are interested in this stuff. Gravity bends Minkowskian space/time. Either that, or bends in Minkowskian space/time are what cause gravity. Either way the photon particle/wavefunction gets wrapped up in the fold. BTW, have you already figured out that gravity is the only thing left to possibly be considered real? I bet you have. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 22:34:05, Link 71.31.144.62 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, If you have heard a better pro-ID presention, I would like to know where. I would even be interested in knowing about any that matched this one. Ok, let's play the game... "The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent." This is a falsifiable statement. It is being tested each and every day. It the universe should suddenly quit being consistent we will know it. Then again, maybe we won't. "The wavefunction is purposeful design." This follows from the first statement and the reference to Anthropic principle that you skipped over. Your problem may be in the word "design". I had indicated earlier that design, for all practical purposes, means non-random. "Whether via anthropic principle or divine whim, life may be necessary to make the teleological universe complete." You did notice the word "may", right? I provided an example of how it "may" be necessary. "If the universe needs something to be consistent, than interconnected quantum effects will make it happen and time order isn’t a restriction." I posted three long comments explaining this one. "While quantum effects are inherent in both living and non-living material, living material is inherently more flexible." Don't like the word "flexible"? How about more utilitarian? "MikeGene’s front loading is essentially looking for a preponderance of clues that a future need was satisfied by a past feature." Are you demanding citations and references to MikeGene's works? "Retrocausality would be something that interconnected quantum effects would demonstrate." Interconnected via space and time, means interconnected via space and time. Time is just another dimension that extends in two directions. |
| Date: 2007/09/25 22:58:47, Link 71.31.144.62 | ||||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||||
|
Hi Skeptic, You wrote...
Thank you and you are welcome.
Getting past the "no random acts" is usually the tough one. We are agreeing more than we are disagreeing.
au contrare... The lord of all things ID provides the measuring stick called CSI. And, by eliminating all chance hypotheses (by eliminating randomness itself) I get a perfect score for calling this design. At least using Dembski's definitions.
Are you sure you are not conflating "design" with "purpose"? I agree that I am hedging over the NOMA line a little bit to suggest a purpose. But, gee golly, it is such a modest purpose. At one time I played with the idea that the purpose of the universe was to exist. But I thought that might be too cute and, besides, it amounts to the same thing as being intentionally consistent. Other than that, I have tried to be very respectful of the NOMA line. At TT people complain that I am the NOMA cop. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 07:12:22, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
I didn't have time to read the link Wesley provided. But I suggest Dembski might be a better authoritative source for how ID defines what is meant by "specification" and, therefore, design Here is a link to a Dembski paper on the subject. "Since specifications are those patterns that are supposed to underwrite a design inference, they need, minimally, to entitle us to eliminate chance. Since to do so, it must be the case that X = –log2[ 120^10 · S(T)·P(T|H)] > 1, we therefore define specifications as any patterns T that satisfy this inequality." |
| Date: 2007/09/26 10:15:58, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, You asked...
My version of this is someone grabbing an umbrella when leaving in the morning because it might rain later in the day. I think it is an example of retrocausality. We have had discussions about this on Telic Thoughts. I don't want to suggest what MikeGene thinks. Personally, I think it goes straight to the point. I think it is an example of life engaging in Front Loading. It is such a trivial example that it is dismissed. That was the general topic of the opening post. Some things are so common that we take them for granted. How are conscious decisions made? Libet's experiments shows 500ms of electrical brain activity occurring prior to a conscious decision being made. This has had a profound impact on the study of consciousness. It has gotten to the point that a significant portion of the community is suggesting that the idea of conscious control is an illusion. At best, we might sometimes get to veto our body's automatic responses. But I digress. I have suggested to MikeGene that the Front Loaded property of life he is looking for is that life's actions are directly coupled to interconnected quantum effects. DNA evolved into a quantum computer, this makes for a significant link between the evolution of life and the interconnected quantum effects. If it is established that microtubules are also quantum computers, consciousness becomes an artifact of interconnected quantum effects. Whether or not it is microtubules, it is very likely that consciousness is directly interconnected with quantum effects because of observations like GHZ states. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 11:56:28, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Richard, Thank you for your comment. You wrote...
Are you familiar with Vernanimalcula guizhouena? I posted a comment on a Telic Thoughts' thread about it (see Yet again…older than expected). Excuse me for this rather long copy, but it is interesting to me... While it is arguable that these are "older than expected" verses just old, the Vernanimalcula guizhouena are a significant find. Here is a link I found… Animals - in the form of microscopic yet complex organisms - may have existed millions of years earlier than previous estimates, according to a new study published in the June 3 [2004] edition of Science Express. … The animal in question is called Vernanimalcula guizhouena, Latin for “small spring animal” - a nod by the discovery team to the “spring” following the so-called “Snowball Earth” time period that ended roughly 600 million years ago when it’s theorized that most of the planet was entombed in ice. Vernanimalcula guizhouena - which was about the size of four human hairs laid side by side - is thought to have survived that period of extreme cold, Bottjer said. “It was a little button-shaped organism that probably scooted along the sea floor,” he said. “It had a little mouth, sort of like a vacuum cleaner. It was tiny, but microbes are even smaller so it probably sucked them up so it could eat them.” Aside from a mouth, Vernanimalcula guizhouena had an anus and paired external pits that the researchers theorized it used to sense environmental conditions, such as light. Here is the Pharyngula link that has some nice pictures. We now know these little critters had a hormonal signaling system. How do we know this? From the link in the opening post…"It is likely that [two types of hormone-secreting nerve cells] existed already in Urbilateria, the last common ancestors of vertebrates, insects and worms" The Vernanimalcula guizhouena descended from the Urbilateria. I don't know about you guys, but this kind of complexity is older than I had expected. 50 million years prior to the Cambrian we have a critter with a pair of "external pits" that were sensitive to light (can you say "eyes"?) a digestive system and a hormonal system. It looks like this little critter could SEE! Do you think I exaggerate? Also from the opening post link… "Both of the cell types studied in Platynereis and fish are multifunctional: they secrete hormones and at the same time have sensory properties. The vasotocin-secreting cells contain a light-sensitive pigment, while RF-amide appears to be secreted in response to certain chemicals." Hormones "…secreted in response to certain chemicals." Could it SMELL and TASTE too? Since even single celled organisms have a sense of TOUCH, I think it is safe to say our little critter probably had that too. Alright, I will admit the Vernanimalcula guizhouena probably had to hand out "I am deaf" cards to any verbalizing organisms running around, but all and all, for it's time the Vernanimalcula guizhouena were intellectual giants. That time was 600 MILLION YEARS AGO! As a champion of a Third Choice I will point out the challenge of this for the other two choices. First of all, what evolutionary pressures would there be to cause such a complex creature to evolve? How much complexity is needed to eat microbes? How complicated do early organisms have to get before it is admitted they just might be more complicated than expected? To the Intelligent Designer advocates. Other than an appeal to "mysterious ways", how did this all come about? How did God the Intelligent Designer implement the plan? Some ID proponents point to the Cambrian Explosion as something significant. To these proponents the complexity shown by the Vernanimalcula guizhouena may be "older than expected" for ID, not "Darwinists". A hypothesis that suggests consciousness at a fundamental level of living organisms would expect organisms with interacting sub-systems earlier than simple evolutionary pressures would dictate. I wonder how many microtubules were in a Vernanimalcula guizhouena. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 14:10:55, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Wesley, You asked...
Hey, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. Whatever it is supposed to be called, it was something I digested and understood to be Dembski's opinion on a topic that is fundimental to ID. It is also recent (Aug, 2005). |
| Date: 2007/09/26 15:22:13, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, To the question... When has anything been measured in CSI? Dembski provided a partial analysis of a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in the essay I linked. See page 25. However, that isn't material to what I was saying. The point is that according to the Dembski's definitions what I have proposed is a "design" in the sense meant for purposes of considering it an ID hypothesis. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 16:01:45, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Wesley, I am somewhat aware of your background. I applaud your fight against the ID Movement. As I stated earlier in the thread, I found out about Intelligent Design through the Dover trial. I think Judge Jones' opinion was inevitable based on the material presented to him. However, not everyone who thinks of themselves as an ID proponent agrees with the definition found on page 99 of the book that was the focus of the Dover trial. For example, I think it is safe to say that MikeGene does not. Furthermore, I’m sure MikeGene didn’t agree with the definition before the Dover trial and actually fought against ID being taught in schools. I consider MikeGene to be an earnest ID Scientist even though he feels that ID isn’t yet qualified to be called “science.” While I think MikeGene would be better off ditching the baggage associated with ID, that is his choice. The ID movement doesn’t deserve him. There is a lot MikeGene and I disagree about, but embracing Gould’s NOMA means that our philosophical differences can be set aside as long as we focus on the science. What I have been presenting here is what I call the Third Choice. A choice other than the status quo and an unidentified Intelligent Designer. Many ID proponents claim ID isn’t about God. I am giving them the opportunity to stand by their words. Here is an ID hypothesis with scientific justification. The reactions to it are informative. I am helping ID Science. I am a vocal critic of the ID Movement. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 16:22:56, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi OldMan and Wesley, You can find a conversation that I had with Salvador Cordova about this essay here Don't get too excited. Salvador ended up retreating to his YEC stance. Salvador gets himself in trouble because he actually tries to do the math and tries to build models. He is an engineer. He can't help himself. In that respect I think more highly of him than I do Dembski. BTW, I know Salvador quotemines horribly and, otherwise, does whatever it takes to promote ID. So don't bother with retelling me this. I am suggesting that, sometimes, he at least tries. And no, I don’t know of any other examples of CSI being applied. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 18:37:28, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi SteveStory, Assuming you are listening, I hope you found this outline of an ID hypothesis a little more substantial than your usual "cotton candy". However, it looks like things are reverting back to rehashing the Group Think approved talking points. I had hoped to get a chance to talk about the Vernanimalcula guizhouena since Richardthughes brought up the subject of the complexity of early life. It doesn't look like that is happening. If anyone has any questions in the future, they can get a hold of me via my blog http://dfcord.blogspot.com/ My comments are open to anyone. Alternatively, I am a frequent contributer at www.TelicThoughts.com. |
| Date: 2007/09/26 22:19:52, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
You are right, that was rude of me. To those who showed an interest and asked earnest questions... thank you. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 07:12:16, Link 69.40.250.202 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Jesting aside, I wish you had too. Do you want to talk about Vernanimalcula guizhouena now? |
| Date: 2007/09/27 11:22:13, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
Are you sure? I am just an engineer with very little biological science training, but I can learn. I learn by listening to people who explain things rather than telling me how and what to think. I provided a link to PZ Myer's pharyngula for a reason. He explains why finding Vernanimalcula guizhouena was important. It wasn't just "a" young organism that happened to be complex. From the pharyngula link... The important point is that this animal possesses the rudiments of morphological characters that are going to erupt into a wide range of diverse specializations in the Cambrian, and it has them roughly 50 million years before the Cambrian 'explosion'. The phyletic innovations we have first seen so clearly in the Cambrian did not come out of nowhere, but have a solid evolutionary foundation in simpler animals. Chen et al.'s summary of their paper: "The morphology of Vernanimalcula demonstrates that the evolutionary appearance of developmental programs required to generate a multilayered bilaterian body plan preceded the entrainment of the growth programs required for macroscopic body size. Furthermore, the organization of these fossils, taken together with their provenance, indicates that the genetic toolkit and pattern formation mechanisms required for bilaterian development had already evolved by Doushantuo times, long before the Cambrian. Therefore, the diversification of body plans in the Early Cambrian followed from the varied deployment of these mechanisms once conditions permitted, not from their sudden appearance at or just before the Cambrian boundary." This sounds a lot like MikeGene talking about evidence for front loaded evolution. Which is why I included the Telic Thoughts link where he included this about the complexity of early organisms... In this week's issue of the journal Cell they report that hormone-secreting brain centres are much older than expected and likely evolved from multifunctional cells of the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms. and this... "These findings revolutionise the way we see the brain," says Tessmar-Raible. "So far we have always understood it as a processing unit, a bit like a computer that integrates and interprets incoming sensory information. Now we know that the brain is itself a sensory organ and has been so since very ancient times." By the way I understand the last common ancestor of vertebrates, flies and worms is called Urbilateria which was the predesesor to Vernanimalcula guizhouena. However, I am just an engineer, what do I know? Earlier, you wrote...
Therefore, I thought you would be interested in discussing early life forms like the Vernanimalcula guizhouena. As to your questions...
First of all, I can only speak to the hypothesis I am proposing and not to the strawman stereotype you wish to hack up. There is no presumption of "the designer" in the hypothesis I have presented. There is a presumption of a universal wavefunction that is timeless because time is just another dimension in space/time geometry. I don't know how the universe came to be, do you? I tend to believe in Common Descent in the sense mainstream biologists refer to it. Interconnected quantum effects are holistic from a time point of view. Therefore, asking about "time(s) of introduction" makes no sense. Whether this is closer to NDE or ID depends on definitions. If you ask a typical ID proponent, NDE is totally based on randomness. If there is no such thing as randomness then NDE falls. I tend to be more neutral, that is why I call it the Third Choice. Presumes neither NDE, nor an Intelligent Designer. It wouldn't bother me to have both sides claim it. As to what a front-loaded ancestor might look like. It might look like a Vernanimalcula guizhouena. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 11:48:12, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
To C.J.O'Brien - Interesting elaboration. Something to think about. To Erasmus, FCD - Sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak (credit John Knowles) |
| Date: 2007/09/27 12:35:05, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi all, I was aware of the quote from Shakespeare. My choice was intentional. Knowles was making a dispassionate observation. "Weak" verses "weak minded". Seeking the sanctuary of Group Think is also a sign of weakness. I was letting you know that actions like these isn't provoking anger. Disgust and pity, maybe, but not anger. I am not interested in attempting to trade insults. I concede most of you appear to be much more experienced at that than I. If you don't wish to have a discussion with me, all you have to do is ask me to leave. Or better yet, don't participate in this thread. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 12:39:24, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E., You wrote...
I agree I am not an atheist since I won't say there is no god. Of course, Richard Dawkins also concedes there might be a God. Most people think Richard Dawkins is an atheist. A lot of religious people think I am an atheist. Labels aren't important, ideas are. P.S. I like your signature line about conservatives. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 13:16:32, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi BWE,
I doubt my Third Choice hypothesis is. Think of lightening. For lightening to be "created" it needs positive and negative potentials. Is lightening pushed or pulled or both? I suggest, like lightening, evolution might result from being both pushed and pulled. NDE describes the pushing part. Front loading would be the pulling part. And, while more important for philosophical discussion, the other similarity to lightening is that the circuit must be complete. There must be a path from the beginning to the end of time, otherwise it doesn't happen. P.S. sorry for the delay, but sometimes I have to do real work.  |
| Date: 2007/09/27 15:04:11, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, I will readily admit that the Third Choice is repackaged Anthropic principle. As to whether it is weak or strong isn't as clear. Skeptic was right to indicate I am violating NOMA in suggesting a purpose, even if it is extremely modest. I am not suggesting human life is key to the universe's existance. For that matter, Earth, and all the life on it, many be a meaningless side effect of the universe being consistent with itself. Maybe it would help if I bring up Dawkin's..."Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." What happens to this if there is no such thing as randomness? Life results from the non-random survival of replicators that vary based on interconnected quantum effects that may, or may not, be needed for consistency in the universe. Science makes the presumption that the universe is consistent. It is a small step over the NOMA divide to say the universe MUST be consistent (i.e. is its purpose). Note, saying the universe has no purpose violates NOMA just as much as saying it does. With that, let me try to focus on the scientific arguments. Hypothesis - Quantum effects are interconnected in both space and time. Implication - All quantum effects are fixed. There is no such thing as randomness, just the illusion of randomness in a highly complex situation. Hypothesis – Evolution has resulted in life on Earth taking advantage of quantum computing (e.g. DNA and photosynthesis). Implication – “Random” mutations are influenced by quantum effects interconnected to future quantum effects. Hypothesis – The appearance of life’s awareness (i.e. consciousness) is a direct artifact of life’s use of quantum effects. Implication - Microtubules are probably the primary mechanism for consciousness. I will say more in a follow up comment. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 15:39:54, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
I understand that MikeGene and Krauze of Telic Thoughts are credited for pushing the Front Loading meme for a long time. I can't speak for them, but I have noticed they have rejected similar characterizations of "traditional front loading" in past comments. MikeGene has suggested that the recA gene might be a front-loaded evolution gene. Here is a link to a paper (essay?) MikeGene wrote in the subject (it was the one MikeGene offered when SteveStory came by on his visit to Telic Thoughts)... RecA is truly a remarkable protein. Even though it is only about 350 amino acids in length, it carries out the multiple functions of binding multiple DNA strands, coordinating their exchange, binding ATP and hydrolyzing it, and interacting with other proteins. In fact, according to one review, the functional domains responsible for these activities closely map together and may even overlap. How is all this carried out? I’ve left out one very important part of the story – RecA is not functional as a monomer, it only becomes functional when it forms protein fibers that wrap around the DNA. In other words, recombination occurs because tubulin-like proteins stretch the DNA by forming a dynamically lengthening tube around it. In this way, the growing protein tube can hold onto the single stranded DNA with one “hand” while using its other “hands” to unravel double stranded DNA such that the single-stranded DNA can be used to probe the unraveled DNA for regions that are complementary. You might have noticed I said “tubulin-like.” Is this simply because RecA forms a semi-hollow protein tube? No. There are several other features that have led one reviewer, for example, to note: The dynamic behavior protein under conditions of ATP hydrolysis is thus conceptually similar to that of other NTP-hydrolyzing, self-assembling proteins, such as actin and tubulin. Like tubulin, RecA formation starts slowing with a nucleation step, where a small number of monomers must form a seed that can then be extended. Once formed, like tubulin, RecA then grows at one end by the incorporation of RecA monomers bound to ATP (tubulin dimers add to one end and must be bound to GTP). Like tubulin, the NTP hydrolysis is not needed for assembly, but instead is needed for disassembly. This means that RecA, like tubulin, assembles at one end and disassembles at the other end, forming something like a treadmill. According to one team of researchers: We argue that RecA can “proofread” the ssDNA by its own binding fluctuations. These fluctuations are similar to microtubule dynamic instability. The assembly dynamics constitute a kinetic proofreading cascade that is a “hair-trigger” sensor of DNA length. Enhancing biomolecular precision by fluctuations, which may seem somewhat counter-intuitive in a deterministic world, is presented as a natural design principle in the noisy realm of the living cell. A microtubule-like structure is thus in charge of genetic recombination. Finally, if RecA is an evolution gene, this would lead to an obvious prediction - removal of RecA should compromise an organism’s ability to evolve. Could the RecA protein be another example of life taking advantage of the power of quantum computing for a key function? I haven't found the time or resources to explore that, but MikeGene went out of his way to point out how his and my hypotheses were mutually supportive. Whether or not the Third Choice is considered part of the rubric called "Front Loading" isn't up to you or me. It is up to those proposing the Front Loading hypothesis. Labels aren't important, ideas are. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 16:33:00, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Erasmus, FCD, You wrote...
This approached a decent argument. If Dr Hameroff is right, the conscious perception of time is based on the rate of conscious events. Human have about 40 conscious events a second. A potato (which has microtubules) would have about one a month. The quantum effects in general matter isn’t organized to fire (massive decoherence) concurrently like living matter with microtubules are. But suppose, for argument sake it is. What is a rock with one conscious event a year going to do about it? P.S. on the extreme chance you are interested in this, you may want to look up Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 16:52:21, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creek Belly, It would have been nice of you to provide the link and quote it in context. But this isn't about being nice is it? Here it is in context... Engel said one of the next steps for the Fleming group in this line of research will be to look at the effects of temperature changes on the photosynthetic energy transfer process. The results for this latest paper in Nature were obtained from FMO complexes kept at 77 Kelvin. The group will also be looking at broader bandwidths of energy using different colors of light pulses to map out everything that is going on, not just energy transfer. Ultimately, the idea is to gain a much better understanding how Nature not only transfers energy from one molecular system to another, but is also able to convert it into useful forms. “Nature has had about 2.7 billion years to perfect photosynthesis, so there are huge lessons that remain for us to learn,” Engel said. “The results we’re reporting in this latest paper, however, at least give us a new way to think about the design of future artificial photosynthesis systems.” It also would have been nice to think about what they were saying. This isn't the first time nature has managed to do something that proves difficult to replicate artificially. Are you suggesting plants operate at 77 Kelvin? |
| Date: 2007/09/27 17:22:53, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi qetzal, Thank you for your comment and thank you for providing the link. As you pointed out, MikeGene said... "A working hypothesis has been that the first cells (uni-cellular life forms) were front-loaded with information that would facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life." (emphasis mine) I have noticed MikeGene is pretty careful with his words. The word "facilitate" makes a big difference IMO. Life's use of quantum mechanics facilitates the evolution of multi-cellular life.
MikeGene is more careful with his words than I. If I said the Third Choice is a Front Loading hypothesis then I was mistaken. I have asked, MikeGene has not said one way or the other. I have my opinion, but it is only my opinion. BTW, I am of the opinion that this is an ID Hypothesis based on the lose definitions used, but I could be wrong about that.
I'm glad to hear from a knowledgable source. You can read MikeGene's paper for itself. I won't speak for MikeGene. I look at the recA gene and, especially, the RecA protein as being in the unique position of having great influence over the evolution process in what MikeGene referred to as "deep time". Pencils balanced on their tips could fall in any direction. I gentile breeze might not make a difference that is immeadiately noticable. But if there are a lot of pencils over a lot of time, the pencils might be biased to tip a certain way. I understand the RecA protein acts very much like a microtubule (I am counting on your expertise to argue this point if applicable). That is a rather convienent coincidence. I am not suggesting some human-like intelligence designed it that way. Think of it as some unknown evolutionary advantage to having a quantum computer in charge of this highly important function. And thanks for noticing the recA gene and RecA protein. I feel my efforts weren’t wasted. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 19:49:20, Link 69.40.250.202 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, Did you know this science stuff can be exciting?!? The internet isn't half bad either. One of the reasons I like arguing on blogs is it forces me to research my responses. You wrote...
The RecA protein was a surprise bonus. It isn't key to the hypothesis. It is just an intreguing possibility. Life's general use of quantum mechanics, especially in DNA and microtubules is enough. And speaking of surprise bonuses when I went looking for the latest and greatest on life using quantum mechanics, I found that a new term is being coined "bio-quantum physics." But that is not all, those fine folk at Berkeley Labs have an update... Like the peeling of an onion, the secrets of photosynthesis are being revealed layer by layer. Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. Green plants and certain bacteria are able to transfer solar energy almost instantaneously from light-capturing pigment molecules — for plants, the main photosynthetic pigment is chlorophyll — into reaction centers where solar energy is converted into chemical energy. The energy transfer happens so fast and is so efficient that less than five percent is lost as heat. How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. However, as is so often the case in science, solving one mystery led to another. What is the source of this remarkably long-lived quantum coherence? A second team, again led by Fleming, believes it has found the answer. Preserving quantum coherence "From our investigation, we conclude that the protein environment in the reaction center works collectively to keep the fluctuations of excited electronics states of pigment molecules in phase, and therefore protects quantum coherence," says Hohjai Lee, a member of Fleming's research group and co-author of a recent paper in Science describing their work. "This is a brand-new function of the protein in the reaction center." link It's no longer a question of whether life directly utilizes quantum mechanics but how and in how many ways. I will be providing an update on DNA processing next. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 20:30:10, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
continuing... From a paper (essay?) titled Bio-quantum computing... BIO-QUANTUM COMPUTERS The spitting in Informational and Physical Quantum levels of Space-Time can be imagined as a gateway to a new challenge in Bio-Computing , dropping down to the fundamental quantum existence of virtual information. One of these challenges will be to utilize the above concepts and rules of bio-quantum physics to develop Bio-Quantum Computers (8). In fact, DNA gene-communication can use both: 1) the localised copy of genes and also can have 2) a simultaneous delocalized role in communicating gene information. In fact DNA, as a nano-biotechnology, can utilize two functions to communicate: 1) through transfer of quantitative localized information by near contact with RNAs to generate proteins, and 2) to diffuse qualitative information by means of working as an ANTENNA able to transmit at gene signals at a distance , using a system of quantum-teletransportation. This second method of gene information by means of simultaneous transmission is necessary to activate the co-ordination of various living functions in the cell as well as for developing the complex cellular dynamical reproduction of forms , e.g to controll the functional complex folding of DNA and proteins , and to co-organize the metabolic funtionality utill the programmed apopthosis of the cell. (9) Henceforth, following the above quantized space-time theory it is becoming evident that Bio-Computers could be made from organic materials using DNA. From a paper (essay?) titled Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code... Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 20:39:20, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi creeky belly, What were we talking about again? Oh yea! How a "fair and balanced" view would suggest that room-temperature quantum effects might not be possible. Excuse me while I suggest it is a pretty safe presumption that nature figured out a way. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 22:44:26, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creeky Belly, Thank you for the head's up on the latest Dr. Patel paper. Here is a link to it. Patel is clearly more focused on the algorithm as opposed to the computer running it. His algorithm requires superposition... The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. ...and... Grover’s algorithm needs certain type of superpositions, and catalytic enzymes can stabilize certain type of superpositions. Do the two match, and if so, what is the nature of this superposition? The specific details of the answer depend on the dynamical mechanism involved. The requisite superposition is of molecules that have a largely common structure while differing from each other by about 5-10 atoms. I have proposed two possibilities [Patel (2001a); Patel (2006b)]: In 2001, Patel presumed the DNA was a quantum computer. It was the most obvious choice. Apparently the likes of Max Tegmark insisted that room-temperature quantum computers weren't possible. This compelled Patel to come up with a "plan B." which is a contrived superposition look alike using classical processing. As for showing it experimentally; your Patel quote was taken a little out of context, you left off the question being answered. Do the living organisms use Grover’s algorithm even today? In principle, this is experimentally testable. Our technology is yet to reach a stage where we can directly observe molecular dynamics in a liquid environment. But indirect tests of optimality are plausible, e.g. constructing artificial genetic texts containing a different number of letters and letting it compete with the supposedly optimal natural language [Patel (2001b)]. This was talking about Patel's entire hypothesis, not just DNA as a quantum computer. I suspect once Patel sees the data coming out of Berkeley Lab on photosynthesis, plan B will be quickly discarded and Patel will revert back to his original, more intuitive, presumption that superposition implies a quantum computer. |
| Date: 2007/09/27 23:20:10, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, Yea, I only skimmed the first paper. I will take your word on it. The second paper is Patel in 2001. Did he improve his biology in the 2007 paper? |
| Date: 2007/09/27 23:57:58, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi BWE, I can empathize. I had a week off from work with nothing to do so I decided to figure out this quantum stuff. I had a headache for the whole week. Your question is the classic wave/particle problem. It gave people like Einstein fits. Some in the Copenhagen school dealt with it by suggesting everything is a wavefunction (there are no particles). This is what Penrose does. Others answer the problem by saying the particle ended up in an alternate reality (Many Worlds). I am almost inclined to believe in a God playing cruel jokes over the Many Worlds interpretation. They are both metaphysical IMO. |
| Date: 2007/09/28 07:45:33, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi BWE, The Wikipedia link that K.E. provided is a good one to show you shouldn't be too hard on yourself for being confused on the issue. It isn't an easy question to answer. Here is a Wikipedia link discussing Wave/Particle duality. Wave–particle duality is deeply embedded into the foundations of quantum mechanics, so well that modern practitioners rarely discuss it as such. In the formalism of the theory, all the information about a particle is encoded in its wave function, a complex function roughly analogous to the height of a wave at each point in space. This function evolves according to a differential equation (generically called the Schrödinger equation), and this equation gives rise to wave-like phenomena such as interference and diffraction. The particle-like behavior is most evident due to phenomena associated with measurement in quantum mechanics. Upon measuring the location of the particle, the wave-function will randomly "collapse" to a sharply peaked function at some location, with the likelihood of any particular location equal to the squared amplitude of the wave-function there. The measurement will return a well-defined position, a property traditionally associated with particles. Although this picture is somewhat simplified (to the non-relativistic case), it is adequate to capture the essence of current thinking on the phenomena historically called "wave–particle duality". (See also: Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.) Alternative views Particle-only view At least one physicist considers the “wave-duality” a misnomer, as L. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development, p.4, explains: When first discovered, particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are “particles” really “waves? in the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result, the notion grew that particle and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatuses would be required to observe them. That idea, however, was only an unfortunate generalization from a technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots (Tonomura) et al, 1989. Evidently, quantum particles are indeed particles, but whose behaviour is very different from classical physics would have us to expect.” Wave-only view At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000) analyzes the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electronic wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:[12] Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms. And while K.E. may consider it just more "psuedoscience", here are some interesting experimental results (Ashfer Experiment). Afshar claims that his experiment invalidates the complementarity principle and has far-reaching implications for the understanding of quantum mechanics, challenging the Copenhagen interpretation. According to John G. Cramer, Afshar's results support Cramer's own transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and challenges the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. So what is this "transactional interpretation"? More from Wikipedia... Suppose a particle (such as a photon) emitted from a source could interact with one of two detectors. According to TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, the "offer wave", and when this wave reaches the detectors, each one replies with an advanced wave, the "confirmation wave", that travels backwards in time, back to the source. The phases of offer and confirmation waves are correlated in such a way that these waves interfere positively to form a wave of the full amplitude in the space-time region between emitting and detection events, and they interfere negatively and cancel out elsewhere in space-time (i.e., before the emitting point and after the absorption point). The size of the interaction between the offer wave and a detector's confirmation wave determines the probability with which the particle will strike that detector rather than the other one. In this interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction does not happen at any specific point in time, but is "atemporal" and occurs along the whole transaction, the region of space-time where offer and confirmation waves interact. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device to record the observer's knowledge as in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics. John Cramer has argued that the transactional interpretation is consistent with the outcome of the Afshar experiment, while the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.[3] Sound familiar? It sounds like a different way of describing Penrose's OR interpretation. I consider Penrose's OR to be a Copenhagen derivative, but that is just a label. Labels aren't important, ideas are. |
| Date: 2007/09/28 07:56:49, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi K.E., One of the things I point out to ID proponents is that it is always easier to stand on the sidelines throwing stones as opposed to suiting up and joining in the game. As you are probably well aware, the typical ID proponent rarely annunciates an alternative, but focuses on criticizing the status quo. While you may have the luxury of hiding behind status quo privilege for biology, you don't get the same luxury for quantum physics. There is no status quo. Would you care to enlighten us on your detailed view have how you suggest resolving the issues that have puzzled people like Einstein, Hawking and Penrose? Or are you the official AtBC stone thrower? |
| Date: 2007/09/28 11:13:15, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi K.E., Welcome to the playing field. While I explained some of this before I don't mind explaining it again and expounding on it. Because I think it is good to get this out in the open. I don't like Dembski. Really... I think he is an example of the worst kind of intellectual manipulator there is. He is trying to enable people to quit thinking about a problem and just "believe". He says just enough to convince people that he saying something substantial but when you ask the converted to explain it, they can't. They just believe. To a lot of people, they are simply forced to make a choice between PhD types saying things they don't understand. So what do you do about it? Jumping up and down and yelling about it isn't going to convince anyone other than those who already understand the situation. By my training and personality, I happen to be a quick learner. I can usually get to the root cause of situations. As an engineer, figuring out the problem gets you most of the way to a solution. Problem - People are letting others think for them. Solution - Provoke people to think for themselves. Problem - People don't want to accept the Status Quo. Solution - Provide a reasonable, thought-provoking alternative. Problem - The 10% minority don't want to discuss alternatives. Solution - Point out that 90% is a lot more than 10% and to the history of what has happened to troublesome intellectuals. Unfortunately, I have to run and deal with real life. Talk to you all later. |
| Date: 2007/09/28 23:55:08, Link 69.40.250.202 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
Hi creeky belly,
Sounds interesting. Thanks for the story.
Have you figured out I am not your typical bad guy yet? I may be a quantum quack, but I am being honest about it. Your attempts at twisting my words isn't being honest. I explained I see two general camps, Copenhagen and Many Worlds. Penrose's OR is on the Copenhagen side. Penrose OR rejects Many Worlds specifically and particles generally. I don't suggest Penrose OR is consistent with "every quantum theory." I also never suggested Libet said anything about time flying backwards. Dr. Hameroff discussed retrocausal quatum effects. Libet just supplied the experimental data point that there is a period of 500ms preceding conscious decisions. This brings up the issue of explaining how professional tennis can be played when a half a second delay in response is too long. BTW, did you know Libet died about a month ago? I just read that. |
| Date: 2007/09/29 00:07:03, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi K.E., Have you decided whether you want me to quit posting or not? (I'm not asking JAM because I suspect I already know his vote). BTW, I liked the backwards motion Rocketboom. It was clever. |
| Date: 2007/09/29 06:33:06, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi skeptic, I agree there is a third camp. I think of this group of people as those waiting for a better explaination. Einstein and Schrödinger were in this camp. The point of the EPR paradox and the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment was to point out the incompleteness of the prevaling quantum theories. During the 1994 debate with Sir Rodger Penrose, Stephen Hawking appeared to still be in this camp. Penrose was arguing that the EPR effect wasn't a paradox and the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment couldn't just be ignored. I understand that Schrödinger expressed regret that he presented his thought experiment. It became an albatross around the necks of all quantum physicists. As an outsider with an engineering background, several pieces fit together when it is accepted that there is no such thing as solid particles and General Relativity is real. When I see secure communication devices being build on the presumption of the reality of EPR and/or GHZ state "woo" and Berkley lab studying photosynthesis on the presumption of room-temperature quantum effects it becomes obvious that it is time to quit looking for an answer and admit you have already found it. Of course the answer might be incomplete and will be adjusted, or even totally revamped. We did it with Newtonian physics. We can do it again if and when needed. |
| Date: 2007/09/29 06:45:31, Link 69.40.250.202 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi creek belly, When you put quotation marks around a multiple sentence quote, it is usually assumed it is an exact quotation. Even more so when you preface it with "Except when you say things like...". This is a case of you literally trying to put words in my mouth. What you suggested is not what I said, it is not what I think. If you rephrase your comment I will answer it appropriately. |
| Date: 2007/09/29 11:19:56, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, Thank you for your comment. I couldn't have done a better job myself. I understood this prevailing opinion but people get confused when I argue both sides of an issue. You even brought in the fast ball example. Hopefully, you will understand how I might view this as an unnecessary contrivance if, in fact, life's awareness (consciousness) can be traced to quantum effects that are interconnected over time. Successfully merging General Relativity with quantum physics would mean the interconnectedness spans light years (which also means it spans years). A 500ms span is nothing by comparison. BTW, no one has brought up causal paradox yet (killing your own ancestors). If this is holding you back from acceptance, don't let it. The interesting part of interconnected quantum effects is that no peeking is allowed. No causal paradox can happen because observing the quantum effect forces the objective reduction. Unknowable quantum information is all that can travel in time. What we would think of as normal information can not. |
| Date: 2007/09/29 12:35:37, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Richardthughes, I apologize if I missed that. If it was in the other thread I wouldn't be surprised. It was somewhat disorganized. |
| Date: 2007/09/29 13:45:46, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, You asked...
I consider Penrose's OR to be a Copenhagen derivitative because Penrose's "Objective Reduction" serves the same purpose as Copenhagen's "Waveform Collapse" and is generally the same thing. However, while Copenhagen left fuzzy the possibility that the waveform of an object collapsed into an actual particleform of the object. That was fine for photons and, possibly, electrons. But for 60 atom molecules (Bucky Balls) it became too much of a stretch for getting matter from non-matter. It became apparent that objective reality is either a particle or a wave, not both. Copenhagen approach continued with the waveform. Penrose renamed the collapse to a Objective Reduction to indicate decoherence is the reduction of the wavefunction to an objective measurement/observation or quantum gravitational collapse. Wikipeadia says "[Penrose Interpretation] is a variety of objective collapse theory." and says this about the Objective Collapse Theory Collapse theories stand in opposition to many-world theories, in that they hold that a process of wavefunction collapse curtails the branching of the wavefunction and removes unobserved behaviour. Objective collapse theories differ from the Copenhagen interpretation in regarding both the wavefunction and the process of collapse as ontologically objective. The Copenhagen interpretation includes collapse, but it is non-committal about the objective reality of the wave function, and because of that it is possible to regard Copenhagen-style collapse as a subjective or informational phenomenon. In objective theories, there is an ontologically real wave of some sort corresponding to the mathematical wave function, and collapse occurs randomly ("spontaneous localization"), or when some physical threshold is reached, with observers having no special role. Which is essentially what I said. I will turn the question around. Why do you think the Penrose OR Interpretation is NOT an Copenhagen derivative? The Orch OR takes OR and adds the implication of consciousness. TIQM is not equivalent to Orch OR. However, TIQM is similar the basic Penrose quantum interpretation (just "OR"), IMO. I reskimmed through John G. Cramer's description of TIQM It looks like the main the elements I need for the Third Choice are here. John G. Cramer is saying quantum effects are interconnection through space and time. DNA and microtubules can be interconnected quantum computers just as easily under TIQM as under Penrose's OR. It looks like TIQM doesn't have a decoherence timeout like Penrose's OR. From the link... "The TI avoids the conceptual problems implicit in this experiment by eliminating any SV collapse which occurs at some definite instant... Instead it employs an atemporal four-space description implicit in the transaction model..." It looks like TIQM will allow things to remain in superposition as long as necessary. I understand Penrose's OR interpretation better. If you want to think of things in TIQM terms, you will have to explain to me the fundamental differences you see that invalidates what I have been saying. P.S. Time for real life again. I will get back later. |
| Date: 2007/09/30 09:11:09, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, I gave some thought into how to stimulate more interesting conversation in this thread but I am running out of ideas. I think you and I are getting close to understanding each other's position. If you have any more ideas for discussion, let me know. Meanwhile, I will discuss a few loose ends. You wrote...
It is my opinion that we live in a universe were if something can happen, it does. When I was learning about Maxwell's equations I could understand, and calculate, how a collapsing magnetic field creates an electrical field and how a collapsing electrical field creates a magnetic field. It all made sense except for one thing, how and why did it start? This wasn't a religious "why" (at least I wasn't thinking in those terms). This was an engineering/scientific "why". The only answer that made sense to me was, because it can. In the 30+ years since then, I haven't come up with a better answer. Therefore, when you present a quantum explaination that doesn't absolutely force quick decoherence (e.g. TIQM) I am going to presume long-term decoherence can, and does, happen. It may be rare. It may require very special conditions. But nature will find a way. Did you know they discovered laser light on Mars?
The RecA protein is directly involved in finding and fixing errors in DNA. RecA protein has the same physical structure as microtubules.
There is the Berkeley Lab experiments we discussed previously. There is also the experimental work behind Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code. Which we have also discussed recently. Here is an experiment ran specifically in relation to the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis. In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models. Experiments are being performed, they will continue to be performed. As you know, science is a continuing process. Even if essentially correct, the Orch OR model will be incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. Even if it gains acceptance, it won't be universal. People will continue to challenge it. Some might even suggest it is too conservative and doesn't go far enough. I understand this is the way of science. I suspect other ID proponents can only wish they had the amount of scientific support for their ideas as Orch OR has (meager as it is). |
| Date: 2007/09/30 09:49:43, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E., And good morning to you too. You wrote...
I can't argue too much that I have acted like an engineer in my attempt to piece together a consistent story. The invention makes for a nice conversation piece, don't you think? I am partial to the sunset exit scene in High Plains Drifter myself (it was foreshadowed and consistent that he disappear right before our eyes). One might suspect you set this next point up for me, since Penrose made a big point about how Deep Blue played chess was evidence AGAINST a presumption of Strong AI. Deep Blue can beat humans when the chess problem is algorithmic. But when it comes to chess problem the requires noticing a non-algorithmic pattern, the average human beats Deep Blue. Here is a link to the chess problem. Humans can see the wall of pawns. Humans can see that they are safe as long as the wall is intact. Humans would know that a draw was the best they could hope for. Humans would know not to break the wall of pawns for any reason. Deep Blue didn't see that. Deep Blue took the "free" rook with his pawn. Neither Steve Hawking nor Sir Rodger Penrose have received Nobel Prizes for their work. It appears that the Nobel Prize committee isn't impressed with non-algorithmic thinking. Most people know Hawking and Penrose correctly figured out that Black Holes exist, but it was based on if-it-can-happen-it-does-happen mathematical modeling. Some people automatically dismiss such things as "woo". |
| Date: 2007/09/30 10:16:14, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, You wrote...
I'm sorry, I usually try to address comments in the order they were received. In my confusion, I skipped over yours. Again, sorry. I'm not going anywhere. I was just giving Creek Belly a heads up that I thought we were getting to a point where the arguments are becoming forced. As for fastballs and Libet. I just did a google search on "fastball Libet" and got a lot of good looking hits. Try it. I think our differences are becoming forced too. BTW, calling me "TP" for short is fine. I think Libet threw scientists a curve ball (pardon the pun) thirty years ago. Think about it. The first reaction was to deny and challenge the reality of experimental data. Experiments were run to challenge Libet, not to support an explanation of it. Libet's results survived the challenge. Then there was the scramble to come up with good-sounding explanations for the data that couldn't be refuted. They come up with some. Life is good again, books have been updated to reassure psychology students their teachers might know something. Conservative answers are generally easier to support. That doesn’t mean they are correct. |
| Date: 2007/09/30 11:44:43, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E., You wrote...
Maybe you haven't understood the magnitude of woo being presented here. This isn’t just human brains. Microtubules are present in practically everything we think of as living. If Hameroff is right, quantum computers in microtubules explains why life appears to be aware if its surroundings. From this Hameroff paper (essay?)…. To gauge how single neuron functions may exceed simple input-output activities, consider the single cell organism paramecium. Such cells swim about gracefully, avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex with partner paramecia. They can also learn; if placed in capillary tubes they escape, and when placed back in the capillary tubes escape more quickly. As single cells with no synaptic connections, how do they do it? Pondering the seemingly intelligent activities of such single cell organisms, famed neuroscientist C.S. Sherrington (1957) conjectured: “of nerve there is no trace, but the cytoskeleton might serve”. If the cytoskeleton is the nervous system of protozoa, what might it do for neurons? |
| Date: 2007/09/30 12:23:19, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, You wrote...
There have been empirical experiments performed, there will be more. The Many Worlds quantum interpretation is a metaphysical construct and, therefore, is not a scientific answer. We have known for a long time that there is no such thing as solid matter. E=mc^2 shows that mass IS energy. Particles ARE wavefunctions. General Relativity, EPR effects and GHZ states are reality, not woo. There is no such thing as randomness, just interconnected quantum effects. There are evolutionary advantages for life to directly use of this feature (e.g. efficient photosynthesis). Empirical evidence shows that life is directly using quantum effects. There are other unanswered scientific questions. For example the "hard" question of consciousness. Hypotheses are needed. There is only so long that we can wait for an answer to present itself. Mercury's unexplainable orbit was an example of this. Sometimes a paradigm shift is needed. I suggest it already has occurred. It has just taken us a long time for us to fully accept how illusional our macro view of reality really is. If you haven't figured it out by now, I am not your typical ID proponent. It might not even be appropriate to label me an ID proponent since I am a vocal critic of the ID movement. Labels aren't important, ideas are. |
| Date: 2007/09/30 13:49:16, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, You wrote...
I guess it is time to take this to the next level. It isn't neuroscience that needs quantum mechanics as much as it is quantum mechanics that needs neuroscience. Penrose didn't just decide to meddle in biological science on a whim. He needed to consider biological science in order to complete his understanding of quantum physics. E=h/t is fine for unobserved phenomon. It explains why decohence happens quickly for macro objects and not for micro objects. It also explains why decoherence happens in messy, noisy environments. However, quantum mechanics has its "hard problem" too. It is the measurement problem. And this problem is also hard. Some people just assume the measuring device is, somehow, interfering with the results. That is only part of the problem. Quantum delayed measurement experiments have delayed the choice of measurement until after all of the measuring devices have taken measurements. The choice still influences the quantum results. Referring back to the opening post. The three special coins are influenced by whether heads or tails are called. In the example I gave the callers were touching the coins when the choices were made. So to further understand the nature of the special coins the callers intentionally close their eyes and flip the coins and don't touch them while they land and settle on the table. The callers wait before they even choose whether they call heads or tails. Even in this situation, the GHZ "magic" still occurs. Consciousness causes quantum collapse Now you might understand the rock and the hard place quantum physicists are trapped between. The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment introduced the role of the conscious observer in an attempt to show how ridiculous the implication of the Copenhagen interpretation was. Ridiculous or not, the Schrödinger's cat experiment is still both dead and alive. And if Penrose is correct, the objective reality of the interconnectedness of quantum effects with consciousness collapses into the state of being really real. |
| Date: 2007/09/30 15:10:40, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, I will get to Creeky Belly in a moment, but I wanted to respond to this first...
The scary part of this is that since the subject crosses multiple scientific disciplines you might be as qualified to participate in this as anyone else, maybe even more so since you picked up on your ability to influence by quietly observing. Do you want to guess who Salvador Cordova suggests is the "ultimate observer"? |
| Date: 2007/09/30 15:25:42, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, You wrote...
Let's take them one at a time. Penrose offers the Waveform Collapse (he calls it Objective Reduction) has a time limit. It will collapse regardless of whether anyone is observing or not. Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive in 10^-31 seconds whether anyone is observing or not. Actually, the fact that the cat is a conscious observer complicates things. This is why Penrose usually uses mechanical weights in his examples (did the weight fall or not?). Mechanical devices are not conscious, but they have mass which influences things. Penrose's proposed FELIX experiment uses a mechanical mirror in superposition to test his decoherence calculations. Decoherence can result from interference from neighboring mass. That is why Penrose-Hameroff spend the effort to explain how the microtubule structure keeps tubulin dimers isolated from neighboring systems. |
| Date: 2007/09/30 15:42:01, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, See, I said you were qualified. That was a good observation, IMO. Once you get past the no randomness part, the rest doesn't challenge standard evolutionary thinking very much at all. At best, it accelerates and amplifies the process. This is why I brought up Vernanimalcula guizhouena. You could think of it as super-charged natural selection that could allow life to be interconnected with (i.e. aware of) nearby quantum effects. "Nearby" includes nearby in both space and time. It isn't the label that is important, it is the idea. |
| Date: 2007/09/30 19:26:29, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, First of all, I was talking about awareness, not learning. Two, your article was a counter balance, it made the learning point equivocal not dead. We are talking about single celled organisms here. Your example is the equivalent of saying it wasn't taught to play checkers because it always loses. Here is a 2006 reference... Previous attempts to condition a 1-celled organism, paramecium, by either classical or instrumental procedures, have yielded equivocal results. The present experiments were designed to determine whether the use of positive reinforcement provided by DC electrical stimulation at the cathode, which had previously been shown to be attractive to paramecia, could be used to train these organisms in a discrimination learning task. The results indicate that such learning did take place. We have all seen the kind of activity that occurs in a drop of pond water. It is hard to watch and not question how single-celled life can do what it does. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 08:15:54, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
We may be finding ourselves on opposite sides of the fence from the usual ID positions. Typical ID proponents generally consider humans special; I don't (unless the idea of the evolutionary equivalent of runaway cancer makes the cancer "special"). I don't see a clear demarcation for awareness in living organisms. Humans are aware, chimpanzees are aware, worms are aware. Life, in general, is aware. Some even argue that plants are aware. My embrace of the concept of common descent is potentially another thing that sets me apart from typical ID proponents. If awareness is an inherited trait, what is the common ancestor that first exhibited awareness? I suggest an animal with a pair of light-sensitive pits linked to a hormonal signaling system has inherited this awareness trait and natural selection has already begun improving its effectiveness. The Vernanimalcula guizhouena is precambrian. I suggest human consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg of the "hard problem". A dispassionate analysis of the situation would suggest that the awareness trait is wide spread in living organisms on Earth and, therefore, appeared extremely early on the evolutionary tree, possibly at the Origin of Life regardless of how incredulous it seems. It would be ironic if "Darwinists" started responding with an argument from incredulity. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 09:35:04, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E., You asked...
"ID" is the abbreviation for the term "Intelligent Design". It is a populous movement run primarily by the Discovery Institute and its fellows which includes Wells, Dembski and Behe. It is mostly, if not entirely, religiously motivated but has attempted to present Intelligent Design as some sort of scientific concept. The capitalization makes it a proper noun and, therefore, distinguishes it from what people would think of as "intelligent design". The ID Movement leaders take advantage of this confusion by playing a shell game of what means what depending on the audience they are addressing. For example, when addressing religious organizations the ID Movement leaders count on the presumption that Intelligent Design implies an Intelligent Designer which implies an Intelligent Creator which implies God. However, when such implications would be detrimental to the movement (e.g. legal depositions), the movement leaders focus on things like innocuous questions and ID alternatives like "space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature". While I believe the ID movement leaders are intentionally engaging in a shell game to further their agenda that was spelled out in the Wedge document, there are ID proponents who actually and earnestly see some potential scientific value in thinking outside the status quo box. Some of these ID proponents even disagree with the tactics employed by the ID movement leaders. I refer to these as ID Scientists even if they, themselves, agree ID has not yet reached the threshold of being called science. Presuming you are asking this question for the purpose of understanding my position on this... I am a vocal critic of the ID movement. However, I can understand and even support the ideal behind ID science. My discussions on Telic Thoughts (this thread is a sample) hits two birds with one stone. It forces thinking about the true motives of the ID Movement leaders since I am taking them at their word that ID isn't about religion and present a purely scientific alternative that presumes most, if not all, of their "scientific observations" and provides an realistic answer for them. It also disarms those who claim it is unreasonable to ask ID proponents to provide a scientific hypothesis with a "pathetic level of detail" when I have provided just such an animal. Finally, it is constructive enjoyment for me. I like to argue. I am a debater. I can take either side and present realistic, non-hypocritical arguments in support. It is constructive, because it forces me and others to research actual science. It provokes thought on both sides of the question. Do I believe all of this is true? What does that matter? I am not even a scientist by trade. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 09:48:05, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi K.E., You wrote...
Come in from off the sidelines and tell us. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 11:20:04, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Richardthughes, You wrote...
In formalized debate circles there is a tactic called a "negative spread". The affirmative side has the burden of forwarding a proposal. The negative side defends the Status Quo. The negative will generally argue the proposal's disadvantages ("It is too <fill-in-the-blank>"). For example, if the affirmative is proposing a new law, the negative could argue it is too strict compared to the status quo. The negative could also argue it is too loose compared to the status quo (i.e. promotes anarchy). The "negative spread" tactic is to argue every possible disadvantage in an attempt to swamp the affirmative. This usually results in the negative arguing in opposing directions. "Too strict" AND "Too loose" This is an inevidable outcome of debating on forums. You are arguing the quantum mechanical brain would be too perfect while Creek Belly is arguing the quantum mechanical brain would be too imperfect without error correction. Did the 1993 version of Deep Blue think like a human or not? That being said, which "chess problem" are you refering too? Penrose suggested a "chess problem" that differentiated algorithmic thinking from type of non-algorithmic thinking possible with quantum computers. The 1993 version of Deep Blue was purely algorithmic. Deep Blue incorrectly moved the pawn by taking the rook. (link) Humans can easily see the mistake using non-algorithmic thinking. This suggests humans have built-in access to quantum computations. AI researchers are designing in quantum computers. Any bets this will result in the "surprising" development of human-like behavor of AI machines? |
| Date: 2007/10/01 11:33:12, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi K.E., You wrote...
I was fascinated by the Dover case. I thought Judge Jones' handling of the case was excellent. Judge Jones' opinion was spot-on in my opinion. As for fighting the Culture War. I think my method has a better chance at being effective. When 10% of the population circle the wagons, it just makes it that much easier for the 90% to wipe them out.
I find it interesting you consider a proposal that includes three major scientific fields of study (cosmology, quantum physics and biology) and encompasses all life on Earth to be on a scale that is too small. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 12:17:49, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
I think you correctly understand the general advantages of quantum computing. It is good at performing search algorithms. This is why Patel thought of quantum computing when he realized DNA performed complicated searches. Quantum effects are advantageous for life when it comes to photosynthesis. Other uses of quantum effects (e.g. quantum computing) would likely provide evolutionary advantages. As I am sure you are aware, evolution doesn't predict perfection. It has been pointed out that once AI starts including quantum computing, Moore's law will become a significant underestimate of the future of computational power. The science fiction scenario of thinking machines building more advanced thinking machines will become a reality. Human thinking may become a quant legacy. Some religious people might be seeing this and other similar scenarios. Do you think minor issues like ethics or the sanctity of science would get in their way of trying to stop it? |
| Date: 2007/10/01 12:42:08, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Richardthughes, You asked...
I really don't go for labels. Accepting a label significantly increases your susceptibility to Group Think, IMO. Labels aren't important, ideas are. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 22:47:18, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi all, I am encouraged by most of the responses. SteveStory came to Telic Thoughts looking for something more substantial than the usual YEC "cotton candy" (his term). I suggest what I offered meets that description. I am not going to be able to prove this Third Choice hypothesis is a better explaination than the Status Quo. I don't have the training to do so. Dr. Hameroff could offer a better defense of his theory than I. For example, Dr. Hameroff explains what he sees as the role of actin and dendrites in papers (essays?) like this one. My ability to cut through the medical babble to think in laymans terms is limited. So when Dr. Hameroff says... Actin is the main component of dendritic spines and also exists throughout the rest of the neuronal interior in various forms depending on actin-binding proteins, calcium etc. When actin polymerizes into a dense meshwork, the cell interior converts from an aqueous solution (sol state) to a quasi-solid, gelatinous (gel) state. In the gel state, actin, MTs and other cytoskeletal structures form a negatively-charged matrix on which polar cell water molecules are bound and ordered (Pollack 2001). Glutamate binding to NMDA and AMPA receptors triggers gel states in actin spines (Fischer et al 2000). Neuronal MTs self-assemble, and with cooperation of actin enable growth of axons and dendrites. Motor proteins transport materials along MTs to maintain and regulate synapses. The direction and guidance of motor proteins and synaptic components (e.g. from cell body through branching dendrites) depends on conformational states of MT subunits (Krebs et al 2004). Thus MTs are not merely passive tracks but appear to actively guide transport. Among neuronal cytoskeletal components, MTs are the most stable and appear best suited for information processing Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved. and Creeky Belly provides a link to a paper (essay?) that says.... Recent work has shown that other actin regulators might modulate the activity of RhoA and thus its effect on spine actin. Ryan et al. showed that the Rho GEF Lcf interacts with the actin-binding protein spinophilin (Ryan et al., 2005). Spinophilin is localized to actin filaments by its actin-binding domain and has crosslinking activities (Grossman et al., 2002; Satoh et al., 1998). The affinity of spinophilin for F-actin is regulated by phosphorylation of the actin-binding domain, which can be mediated by PKA and CaMKII (Grossman et al., 2004; Hsieh-Wilson et al., 2003). In neurons, Ca2+-dependent phosphorylation by CaMKII reduces the affinity of spinophilin for actin and targets the protein to synaptic membrane fractions (Grossman et al., 2004). Expression studies in hippocampal neurons showed that Lcf localizes to the cell body and the dendritic shaft, where it associates with microtubules. It is going to take a lot of effort on my part to understand the fundamental differences between the two. I have explained my reasoning for why, from a top-level view, the Third Choice sounds feasible. It has backing of true scientists that I feel are ethically and honestly presenting ideas. Sir Rodger Penrose agrees that he may very well be wrong about biological sources for consciousness. He is much more convinced of his physics and mathematics. His quantum interpretation, like his model for Black Holes, is too complete and consistent with reality to be easily dismissed. His mathematical proof against Strong AI is solid (after a minor adjustment that was compelled by peer review). The logical implication of Penrose's understanding is that awareness/consciousness is directly tied to quantum effects. Call it a prediction. Has this prediction been verified yet? No, but Dr. Hameroff offers his opinion on reasons for optimism. I find all this interesting and it provides fuel for debates in blogs and forums. I am not suggesting this should be taught in public schools. At least not yet. |
| Date: 2007/10/01 23:07:46, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi K.E. You wrote...
It didn't surprise me in the least. Either at Telic Thoughts or here. The humorous part is that both sides question my motives even as I tell both sides the same thing, which I think is correct to the best of my ability to know myself. Here is a recent comment of mine on Telic Thoughts.
First, I wouldn't say I think "TP's Version of ID© is valid". That comes too close to calling it the Truth for my NOMA tastes. I don't know the Truth, do you? Second, a lack of a mechanistic model has made for arguing against ID like the proverbial nailing jello to a wall. My offer of a mechanistic model tends to force ID proponents into accepting it as ID science or to rationalize why its lack of specific support for an Intelligent Designer disqualifies it. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 07:28:01, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi JAM, Dr. Hameroff is... Professor Emeritus, Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona This has been is the focus of his professional life. He is 60 years old. He is joined by other professionals like Scott Hagan, Jack Tuszynski and Nancy J. Woolf in his hypothesis concerning the role of microtubules for consciousness. As an engineer, I approach this pretty as Penrose did as a physicist. It makes too much sense to see consciousness connected to quantum effects. Why should I accept your "trust me" bombastic babble when Dr. Hameroff takes the time to try and explain it in layman's terms? Even Max Tegmark explains his objections in layman's terms. You have made your counter argument. I will continue my affirmative argument. We can let the debate judges decide for themselves. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 10:36:25, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi K.E., I quoted Dembski for the purposed of explaining why I feel the Third Choice hypothesis meets the definition of "design" as outlined by a prominent ID Movement leader. I have indicated in this thread (more than once) that I disagree with the tactics and motives of the ID Movement. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 11:53:25, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi oldmanintheskydidntdoit, You asked...
Interesting question. I tend to look at science as a logic problem based on assumptions. The first big assumption science makes is that things are consistent. We assume that minute by minute, day by day, there won't be any unexplainable inconsistencies. For example, the sun won't appear to rise from the West one morning. If you take the time to work through all of Dembski's smoke and mirrors of Upper Probability Bounds, filters and Specified Complexity he is presuming that a "fair" analysis would indicate that some things in nature are less likely than not to be due to randomness. He then leaps to the presumption that there are only two alternatives, randomness or design. This is how he boldly rationalizes he is offering that design is the "best" explanation. Philosophy 101 teaches us the wise man knows he doesn't know the Truth (capital "T"). I don't know which Truth to believe, but I can solve logic puzzles. If we take ID's presumption that randomness alone isn't sufficient to explain all observations, how would that work? This is my suggested answer to that logic puzzle. My belief in the basic premise is approaching 50%. I realize it is incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. However, that is true of most, if not all, scientific theories. Science is a never-ending process. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 12:26:03, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Rich, You wrote...
I agree and thank you for pointing it out. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 13:47:50, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi JAM, You wrote...
And if it isn't obvious by now, let me state it clearly. I don't have enough biological knowledge to know whether quantum computation comes from microtubules, actin or pixie dust. Dr. Hameroff provides a good-sounding mechanistic model for microtubules. If you could provide a mechanistic explanation for quantum computation via actin I would have no qualms about considering it too. In fact, I would welcome it. I suspect any quantum computation requires both actin and microtubules. As for recent relevant data. The main objection until now has been Max Tegmark's warm, wet brain issue. The focus has been on showing room-temperature quantum computation is even possible. Significant progress is being made there. Sure, in the future Dr. Hameroff's attempts may be considered as bumbling and crude as you are making them out to be. It wouldn't be the first time someone turned out to be right for the wrong reasons. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 14:04:18, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, One of the prevailing things I do when debating ID proponents is ask for their definition of intelligence. I have several dictionary versions I quote for this purpose. They all start out with something like "The ability to learn or adapt..." So, did the Intelligent Designer need on-the-job training? As you can imagine, this line of discussion makes for some interesting responses. When pinned down, the ID definition becomes anything that isn't from "an undirected process such as natural selection." This pretty much means that the retrocausal aspect of interconnected quantum effects is a directed process and, therefore, qualifies. For all I know the direction could come from a metaphysical intelligence, but since the ID Movement rejects the need to identify the designer, I don't need to either. It is weak, but no ID proponent has tried challenging that part yet. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 15:25:19, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi JAM, You wrote...
Do you have links? BTW, instead of asking me leading questions like "What part of the neuron does that predict will fail to contain microtubules?" please tell me what you are saying. You have been the one bringing up the concept of over reducing the problem. Dr. Hameroff is talking about the whole system, actin, dendrites and microtubules included. I have also stated the presumption that both actin and microtubules are needed. |
| Date: 2007/10/02 19:35:53, Link 69.40.250.69 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
| MikeGene said late November |
| Date: 2007/10/02 20:29:17, Link 69.40.250.69 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Reciprocating Bill, Thank you for the data point on the chess program. You asked...
I don't think so. Help me verify some math... ~10^11 neurons x ~10^3 synapses/neuron x ~40 Hz EEG frequency. 4000 tera operations. Blue/Gene can get up to 360 teraflops. This tells me that we should be about 2 to 3 years from having the computer hardware that will exceed the human brain. If Dr. Hameroff is correct, the human brain is many orders of magnetude greater than this (~10^8 microtubules/neuron). |
| Date: 2007/10/03 12:18:26, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, In response to JAM's discussions, I have been trying to understand other points of views of the general idea of the brain using quantum computations. In this effort, I ran across Walter J Freeman. Here is what the scholarpedia has to say abut him... Walter J Freeman (b. 30 January 1927 in Washington DC) studied physics and mathematics at M.I.T., electronics in the Navy in World War II, philosophy at the University of Chicago, medicine at Yale University, internal medicine at Johns Hopkins, and neuropsychiatry at UCLA. He has taught brain science in the University of California at Berkeley since 1959, where he is Professor of the Graduate School. I would suggest these kind of credentials would make sense as someone qualified to speak on quantum effects in the brain. While Dr. Hameroff references Dr. Freeman's research, I get the impression the Dr. Freeman is more conservative in his hypotheses than Dr. Hameroff. Is JAM hinted at, there is support for the idea that the brain includes a quantum computer. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy includes several examples of Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. Here is the entry's intro... It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness. Several approaches answering this question affirmatively, proposed in recent decades, will be surveyed. It will be pointed out that they make different epistemological assumptions, refer to different neurophysiological levels of description, and use quantum theory in different ways. For each of the approaches discussed, problematic and promising features will be equally highlighted. Here is the entry they had for the Penrose-Hameroff model... In the scenario developed by Penrose and neurophysiologically augmented by Hameroff, quantum theory is claimed to be effective for consciousness, but this happens in an extremely sophisticated way. It is argued that elementary acts of consciousness are non-algorithmic, i.e., non-computable, and they are neurophysiologically realized as gravitation-induced reductions of coherent superposition states in microtubuli. Unlike the approaches discussed so far, which are essentially based on (different features of) status quo quantum theory, the physical part of the scenario, proposed by Penrose, refers to future developments of quantum theory for a proper understanding of the physical process underlying quantum state reduction. The grander picture is that a full-blown theory of quantum gravity is required to ultimately understand quantum measurement (see the entry on quantum gravity). ...Penrose suggests that a valid formulation of quantum state reduction replacing (1) must faithfully describe an objective physical process that he calls objective reduction. Since present-day quantum theory does not contain such a picture, he argues that effects not currently covered by quantum theory should play a role in state reduction. Ideal candidates for him are gravitational effects since gravitation is the only fundamental interaction which is not integrated into quantum theory so far. Rather than modifying elements of the theory of gravitation (i.e., general relativity) to achieve such an integration, Penrose discusses the reverse: that novel features have to be incorporated in quantum theory for this purpose. In this way, he arrives at the proposal of gravitation-induced objective state reduction. Why is such a version of state reduction non-computable? Initially one might think of an objective version of state reduction in terms of a stochastic process, as most current proposals for such mechanisms indeed do (see the entry on collapse theories). This would certainly be indeterministic, but probabilistic and stochastic processes can be standardly implemented on a computer, hence they are definitely computable. Penrose (1994, Secs 7.8 and 7.10) sketches some ideas concerning genuinely non-computable, not only random, features of quantum gravity. In order for them to become viable candidates for explaining the non-computability of gravitation-induced state reduction, a long way still has to be gone. With respect to the neurophysiological implementation of Penrose's proposal, his collaboration with Hameroff has been crucial. With his background as an anaesthesiologist, Hameroff suggested to consider microtubules as an option for where reductions of quantum states can take place in an effective way, see e.g., Hameroff and Penrose (1996). The respective quantum states are assumed to be coherent superpositions of tubulin states, ultimately extending over many neurons. Their simultaneous gravitation-induced collapse is interpreted as an individual elementary act of consciousness. The proposed mechanism by which such superpositions are established includes a number of involved details that remain to be confirmed or disproven. The idea of focusing on microtubuli is partly motivated by the argument that special locations are required to ensure that quantum states can live long enough to become reduced by gravitational influence rather than by interactions with the warm and wet environment within the brain. ... By and large, the scenario by Penrose and Hameroff represents a highly speculative approach with conceptual problems and without plausible concrete ideas for empirical confirmation. On the other hand, it is worthwhile to remember Bohr's bonmot that the question may not be whether a theory is too crazy but whether it is crazy enough. I present this as an attempt to reaffirm JAM's suggestion the brain's reliance on quantum mechanics isn't that far-fetched considering it is receiving serious consideration. Penrose-Hameroff may be at an extreme end of the spectrum, but I offer we shouldn't discount the idea out of hand. Chances are all of these "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness" are incomplete in some manner. |
| Date: 2007/10/03 15:40:39, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi JAM, You asked...
Here is Dr. Hameroff's answer... Interview with Stuart Hameroff, MD, in Alternative Therapies (May 1997 3(3):70-79 by Bonnie Horgan). Alternative Therapies: How did an anesthesiologist end up speaking at a consciousness conference? Hameroff: I became interested in understanding consciousness as an undergraduate at the University of Pittsburgh in the late 60's. In my third year of medical school at Hahnemann in Philadelphia I did a research elective in professor Ben Kahn's hematology-oncology lab. They were studying various types of malignant blood cells, and I became interested in mitosis-looking under the microscope at normal and abnormal cell division. I became fascinated by centrioles and mitotic spindles pulling apart the chromosomes, doing this little dance, dividing the cytoplasm, establishing the daughter-cell architecture, and beginning differentiation. I remember wondering to myself how these centrioles and mitotic spindles "knew" where to go and what to do. What kind of intelligence was running the show at the cellular level? My main interest was still consciousness, or the brain-mind problem. At that time, scientists were just beginning to appreciate that all cells, including neurons, contained the same structures that make up mitotic spindles, which are basically microtubules You see, for 30 years scientists had been using the electron microscope to look at intracellular structure. But the fixative agent osmium tetroxide was dissolving all the internal structure. It dissolved everything. So for many, many years the cell was perceived as a bag of water. Alternative Therapies: The fixative that was used to examine the cell was dissolving the cell structure? Hameroff: Yes. The cytoplasmic fine structure was erased. Finally in the early 70's electron microscopists switched to glutaraldehyde and saw order and structure in cytoplasm organized by networks of microtubules. Thanks to the anatomist Keith Porter and his coworkers it became obvious that the interior of a cell was like a tiny forest. Not only that, the forest was very dynamic. It was moving things around, rearranging itself, defining the shape, function, and structure of the cell. As it turned out, the same microtubules running the show in mitosis were running the show in neurons and other cells all the time. Each neuron was a network of microtubules. I came to think of the brain as a network of networks, forests within trees. When I finished medical school I thought about a research career, but opted for clinical work and matched for internship in Tucson, Arizona. I considered residency in neurology or psychiatry, but then I met Professor Burnell Brown, the chairman of the anesthesiology department at the University of Arizona medical center. He told me "If you want to know what consciousness is, study the mechanism of anesthetics." He also gave me a paper suggesting anesthetics depolymerized microtubules, and convinced me that anesthesiology was an excellent career choice. I signed on. When I finished residency Burnell offered me a faculty position, and here I am twenty years later. And here we are ten years after that. BTW, here is a link on my blog showing microtubules in action during cell division. |
| Date: 2007/10/03 17:09:24, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi JAM, S. Hagan, S.R. Hameroff and J.A. Tuszynski: Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules: Decoherence and Biological Feasibility. Physical Review E 65, 61901:1-10 (2002). S. Hameroff, A. Nip, M. Porter and J.A. Tuszynski: Conduction pathways in microtubules, biological quantum computation, and consciousness. BioSystems 64, 149-168 (2002). Here is a link to over 50 papers (essays?) written by Tuszynski and various other people on this subject. Here is a 2005 paper Hameroff wrote where he discusses microtubule's role in mitosis and possible role in cancer. A lot of other information (presentations, interviews, etc) can be found at www.hameroff.com. |
| Date: 2007/10/03 20:56:41, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi JAM, Do you have what you would call "data" for an alternative explaination for quantum computations of consciousness? As I have indicated before, I'm open to the idea that quantum computations could be the result of microtubules, actin or pixie dust. It is a detail as far as the Third Choice hypothesis is concerned. From your reaction I am presuming that you do not consider consolidating various observations and running simulations to present results in a coordinated fashion as "publishing new data". This isn't just Dr. Hameroff. Consider the experiments run by Pizzi, Rita; Fantasia, Andrea; Gelain, Fabrizio; Rossetti, Danilo; Vescovi, Angelo. The abstract included... "In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by..." link While I am sure you will have an objection to this 2004 experiment too. The point is that a reasonable number of people are taking this seriously. I don't begrudge Dr. Hameroff for focusing on coordinating and encouraging other’s efforts by publishing overall analyses and lecturing, obviously you do. If you want to suggest an alternative, fine. I will listen. Meanwhile, I am presuming these other people might be on to something. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 08:49:39, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
On October 4th, Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson's announcement where he said "Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate." I am making the easy prediction of a non-outcome to the un-debate where the spin-masters on both sides will claim victory. This is my overt attempt at preempting with my un-spin to provoke thinking about the polarization that this represents. Allow me some hyperbola to illustrate the point; one extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of the random assembly of a 747 from a pile of junk another extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of an Intelligent Designer saying "I am" accompanied by a pyrotechnical display of local shrubbery. In other words, the basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer. There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely? I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short. What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected? How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level? What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects? How about if respectable scientists at Berkeley lab reported something like… Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. … How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. link …? What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects? What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition? From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code… Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process. From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages… The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point. The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda? BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred “randomly” from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 08:50:43, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Excuse me for doing this to you all. But I am starting up another thread that puts a slightly different "unspin" on this. I want to run it in parallel to the exact same post on Telic Thoughts. See A Voice from the Middle Ground |
| Date: 2007/10/04 09:25:24, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
K.E. asks...
Appears so! Actually I am sorry that I am rushing this thread. I wanted to strike while the iron is hot with the Nelson/Ruse "undebate". I will try to respond here to continue the more detailed science discussion. But I also want to have a discussion at the higher level of the other thread. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 09:35:03, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Albatrossity2, Have I got "any"? yes. Do I have "enough"? it depends I don't have enough to prove my case. This isn't unusual. Science doesn't "prove" anything. Do I have enough to justify something more than an automatic dismissal? That is root of the question. If you are going to dismiss this with the same contempt as you would "GodDidIt" then the ID proponents are right, you are focused on protecting Status Quo thinking (scientism?). |
| Date: 2007/10/04 10:45:37, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi all, Here is what I responded to Nick Matze on Telic Thoughts...
I will follow up with specific responses to your comments. So far, I like what I am reading. Thank You. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 12:13:11, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Keith, From a paper titled Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether? link "In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the “absolute world”. The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski’s absolute world concept and Mach’s ideas on rotational movements…" The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. If everything was relative and there was no "ether" (inertial frame of reference) then this was a problem. Minkowskian geometry explained it was a simple geometry situation where the shortest distance between two points is NOT a straight line. Note: this is copied and pasted from Telic Thoughts |
| Date: 2007/10/04 16:06:40, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||||
|
Hi All, I will continue my running gun battle with Keiths in a moment, but first let me catch up... Albatrossity2 wrote...
Engineers are like that too. They tend to go with what works. Provide a mechanistic explanation that makes sense (i.e. a model) and they will run with it. I have plenty of experience with PhD types providing lists of why a proposed design won't work. However, when they refuse to offer an alternative we have to go with the best we got. The funny part is when the project is successfully completed, the PhD types still maintain they were right and provide plenty or reasons why. Penrose's quantum interpretation (OR) makes sense and answers all of the quantum observations like GHZ states. The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model is a fall out of this. Consciousness has to be tied to interconnected quantum effects. Consciousness can't be purely algorithmic. Dr. Hameroff takes this a provides a detailed model of how this could work. I understand it well enough to go with its basic concept. Do you have an alternative model? qetzal wrote...
BWE wrote...
Is the Earth "directed" to revolve around the sun? General Relativity suggests that time is just another dimension in space/time geometry. There is no reason that the future couldn't effect the past for similar reasons that the sun can effect the Earth. "Teleological" becomes a metaphysical semantic game until you start talking about a designer. To illustrate this, I talk about how the purpose of the universe is to be consistent with itself. Skeptic pointed out this is a metaphysical statement. I agree with him. Besides, I have heard just about as many ID critics say this is about "God" as I have heard ID proponents talk about belief in randomness. Are you ready to agree there is no such thing as randomness (or at least that it is a metaphysical presumption)? To Jim - glad I can help with your insomnia To BWE - Other than arguing against randomness, what I am saying isn't in direct conflict with the ToE. I am suggesting an enhancement that might explain why living organisms like Vernanimalcula guizhouena are more complex than expected. While I hesitate to speak for MikeGene, I think it is safe to say he has a similar position. Front Loading is an enhancement, not a challenge. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 19:24:18, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Captain's Log, star date 2006.1004, We are on assignment in the Alpha quadrant to study planet cluster 623. I have ordered the navigator to make it appear the planet cluster is moving in a circular pattern relative to the ship. Side note, I find it interesting that when the navigator does this it looks like the entire universe is spinning at the same rate, fascinating. I have ordered Ensign Keiths to my ready-room. Here he is now (wearing a red shirt, of course). Ensign, we are sending down several survey teams to various planets in this cluster. This operation will occur over two years, ship time. The first year we will be dropping off teams the second year we will be picking them up. However, it won't appear to be a year for you. Since, as you know, "...there is no absolute frame of reference..." and "...that the laws of physics are identical in all..." local frames of reference. Based on the ship's frame of reference, you will be constantly traveling at warp 0.9. At nine tenths the speed of light time will go slower…. err… um… or does it go faster? Hmmm, let's do the math... ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2 = 1.0 - 0.81 = 0.19 ds = 0.436 years Ah yes, that’s it. Less than half a year. Therefore, we will provision your shuttle to last you and your team half a year. We will be back before you know it. Ensign Keiths? Do you have something to say? |
| Date: 2007/10/04 19:49:46, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi C.J.O'Brien, You wrote... [quote]I guess, in short, (and apologies: I know your dislike of labels) I sense in your treatment of these concepts what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism." IOW, just because there's a quantum reality that underlies our ordinary classical-scale existence, it doesn't mean that it's useful to try and explain every phenomenon in quantum terms. I'd like you to rein in your theorizing, and tell me what it is a theory like this would even be called upon to explain. And don't just say "consciousness," unless you can demonstrate the bit I quoted from your post at the top, there.[quote] I suggest the opposite of what you are talking about is compartmentalizing. One of the things Penrose did was to merge General Relativity with quantum physics. A complete model needs to explain both realities. Consciousness plays into this too. It is part of the measurement problem for quantum mechanics. Penrose didn't ignore this inconvienient observation. He offered a mathematical proof against Strong AI. Here is Planet math's analysis of it. I understand there was a time that geologists and scientists studying the sun were ignoring each other. The geologists felt the earth was old, the scientists felt the sun was young (this was before E=mc^2). Neither saw a need to deal with the other discipline's problem. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 20:06:49, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi BWE, You wrote...
My reaction to this is asking WTF did we need special and general relativity for? We were getting along fine with Newtonian physics. I suggest a deeper understanding of fundamentals will always come in handy. To start with. If Hameroff is correct, the human brain is over 10^8 times more powerful than previously thought. As for my interest in attaching this to ID. First of all, curiosity. I like understanding people who think different than myself. I am learning things about ID proponents by throwing this hypothesis out there. I am also more concerned about what will happen when the paradigm shift happens. I am concerned that if we continue the polarization, the majority will lose patience and we risk a repeat of 391 AD where "reality" was created by political decree (emperor Theodosius I) reinforced by the destruction to contrary scientific thought in places like the Serapeum of Alexandria (Library of Alexandria). My answer is to provoke thought on both sides. Besides, I think the Third Choice hypothesis has a good chance of being correct. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 20:43:18, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi JAM, You wrote...
Good, and I wish you good fortune.
And Penrose has offered testable prediction based in E=h/t. His FELIX experiments tests the predicted decoherence time of a small mirror. Penrose/Hameroff model implies that once AI starts using quantum computation the results will be "surprisingly" human-like. And, oh yea, the prediction that neural networks will “…present non-local properties not explainable by classical models." Here is the link to that experiment you have assured me has nothing to do with microtubules even though the authors mention Penrose-Hameroff by name. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 20:56:03, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
This is probably a philosophical difference. I have a strong sense that, in this universe, if it can happen it does happen. I think Penrose has a similar philosophy. Hawking and Penrose figured out Black Holes could happen. They presumed Black Holes existed long before evidence was found. Did you know natural occuring laser light was found on Mars? link I think the trick to physics is trying to figure out what isn't possible under what conditions. It may be the trick to biology too. You wrote...
You might want to talk to MikeGene about his opinion on that. Here is my comment on Vernanimalcula guizhouena. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 22:53:40, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
And life using quantum effects for photosynthesis occurring midway between them. Going from V. guizhouena to humans seems trivial compared to going from basic chemicals to V. guizhouena, even at 5 times the duration. I also find life's start on early Earth interesting. As an engineer I tend to think that evidence of life at 4 bya means life started much earlier. As it is, Earth was pretty hostile that early. Added to that, the possible existence of nanobes means we might have a whole new outlook on the Origin of Life... From Nanobacteria and Nanobes- Are They Alive? Nanobes are thought to exist everywhere! Nanobe structures have been found within organisms as well as rocks. While their existence is relatively new knowledge, some speculate that nanobes may even outnumber bacteria by an order of magnitude! Nanobes may also exist on other planets! Martian meteorites such as ALH84001 (more info) have been speculated to contain trace fossils of nanobacteria. The softball-sized igneous meteorite shows microscopic worm-like and "ovid" nanofossils.
Another unusual philosophy of mine. I don't mine embracing multiple concepts simultaneously. I think it is quite possible that V. guizhouena could have happened without help from interconnected quantum effects. It is all a matter of percentages. What is the percentage chance that life on Earth came from a meteor? I use to put that pretty low. It is getting a little higher. My percentage chance for Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR is around 50%. I am generally more interested in provoking thought than trying to make converts. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 23:06:30, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, You asked...
Keiths was questioning my understanding of Special and General Relativity. I offered my understanding with a story that may have helped explain at least some of my understanding. The situation I described makes sense from a Special Relativity point of view. But Keiths knows that in this situation the poor survey team is going to starve long before the ship arrives to pick them up. Keiths knows this because General Relativity indicates there is an absolute inertial frame of reference. Keiths offered a Scientific American article on it. I must admit, I am surprised by the number of articles trying to defend Special Relativity when it is obvious that Special Relativity is, at best, incomplete. Right or wrong, I understand what I am saying and can defend it. So far, Keiths isn't interested in trying to explain his answers in his own words. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 23:20:40, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, I am impressed. Do you mind if I mention your qualified admission on Telic Thoughts? BTW, MikeGene and I have had heated words over what I perceive as an implied presumption of a designer. However, that was a while ago, he may be modifying his position on that. At least he has conceded that if there is a designer, it is most likely there is more than one. Not many ID proponents will readily admit that. I have pulled a tail or two with the suggestion that if anything looks like a designed-by-committee job, it would be life on Earth. |
| Date: 2007/10/04 23:27:32, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
I will save some bandwidth in the running gun-battle with Keiths. In case anyone is interested... Here is the link to my response in Telic Thoughts |
| Date: 2007/10/04 23:49:28, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, You are right. I skipped a step. The first cell is the tough one. Frankly a lot of time and energy could be saved if it was stipulated that evolution after Cambrian is a trivial gimme. But, I know, I am preaching to the wrong crowd on that. |
| Date: 2007/10/05 10:25:26, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Another copy and paste from Telic Thoughts... Let's see, how can I provoke Nick Matzke or someone like him to comment? I got it… These discussions go to show the potential benefit of Intelligent Design. It isn't so much a matter of who is right or wrong, the benefit comes from a radical approach to viewing scientific questions. It wasn't my intent to belittle Einstein, Watson and Crick for the incompleteness and/or incorrectness of their initial attempts at modeling. Quite the contrary. I point to their stubbornness in the face of adversity as an example of how science makes significant advances. Sometimes we learn more by being wrong than being right. However, the trick is that hypotheses need to be understandable enough to expose everything, including the flaws. This is one of my major criticisms of the ID Movement leaders. They appear to be purposely hiding the details of their proposal and encouraging others to do the same ("…pathetic level of detail"). It doesn't help when understandable concepts are hidden behind unnecessary complications. For example, "-log base-2 (x) > 1.0" instead of "more likely than not" as Dembski does in his definition of Specified Complexity. ID Science has potential merit. If we could openly and honestly discuss radical scientific hypotheses, even if they have flaws, it might provoke thinking about things in a different way. Who knows? If the flaws are exposed, we might figure a work-around and come up with a better understanding of the world we live in. What would it take to resist the ID/Darwin polarization? I suggest honest and open discussions in a blog like Telic Thoughts. |
| Date: 2007/10/05 10:54:33, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creeky Belly, The issue is the lack of completeness and/or correctness of Special Relativity. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? The question of whether general relativity is required to resolve the twins paradox has long been a subject of spirited debate. On one hand, Einstein wrote a paper in 1918 to explain how the general theory accounts for the asymmetric aging of the twins by means of the “gravitational fields” that appear with respect to accelerated coordinates attached to the traveling twin, and Max Born recounted this analysis in a popular book, concluding that "the clock paradox is due to a false application of the special theory of relativity, namely, to a case in which the methods of the general theory should be applied". On the other hand, many people object vigorously to any suggestion that special relativity is inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the twins paradox. Ultimately the answer depends on what sort of satisfaction is being sought, viz., on whether the paradox is being presented as a challenge to the consistency of special relativity (as is Dingle's fallacy) or to the completeness of special relativity. If we're willing to accept uncritically the existence and identifiability of inertial frames, and their preferred status, and if we are willing to exclude any consideration of gravity or the equivalence principle, then we can reduce the twins paradox to a trivial exercise in special relativity. However, if it is the completeness (rather than the consistency) of special relativity that is at issue, then the naive acceptance of inertial frames is precisely what is being challenged. In this context, we can hardly justify the exclusion of gravitation, considering that the very same metrical field which determines the inertial worldlines also represents the gravitational field. While I think it sugercoats the incorrectness of Special Relativity, I understand the presentation and can agree with it. It is a compromise. |
| Date: 2007/10/05 16:47:32, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creeky Belly, Thank you. I can be arrogently sure of positions I am sure of, but it does get tiring when it seems like the whole world is saying I got it all wrong. Of course that is the way of the blogs. People rarely risk providing support. Thanks again. |
| Date: 2007/10/06 19:26:00, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
In case anyone is interested. Several people at Telic Thoughts expressed frustration that the Third Choice didn't go far enough. This shouldn't surprise those of you here who questioned its status visa vie ID. I have relented and have provided an updated version. Here is the copy and paste from Telic Thoughts… Hi All, Is EAM an ID Hypothesis? Is Front Loading an ID Hypothesis? Assuming the answer is "yes" to the above, let me offer a modification to the Third Choice. Let's call it, The Third Choice, ID Version. The Third Choice, ID version violates NOMA in my opinion. However, since I don't know the Truth, it is a valid possibility. Here are the main points… 1. There is no such thing as randomness, period. Multiverse is false. 2. The universe has purpose. At the very least its purpose is to be consistent with itself. 3. The universe has a timeless intelligence (mind) that results from the interconnected quantum effects, including the quantum effects that gives rise to consciousness at the cellular level. 4. The interconnected quantum effects are both causal and retrocausual since time is just another dimension in space-time. 5. The quantum effects are not deterministic because they are not algorithmic. Their complexity creates an illusion of randomness. 6. The universe, and the life in it, is a result of purposeful design emanating from this timeless intelligence. 7. Understanding things like choice and free will are complicated by our view of time. It is difficult to fully conceptualize timeless decision making. Are we making a conscious decision we already made based on non-local quantum information that could be from the future? 8. Don't ask who or what designed the timeless designer unless you have an answer to the inherent "turtles all the way down" yourself. Empirical evidence of design comes from the hypothesis' predictions like expectations that conscious decisions are effected by future events (Libet) |
| Date: 2007/10/06 19:36:34, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, Out of fairness, here is The Third Choice, Multiverse Version. I think it violates NOMA too. 1. Our universe is a purposeless, random selection from multiple universes during its creation. 2. The universe is made up of interconnected quantum effects which have no inherent purpose. Consistancy is just a result of physical laws. 3. The interconnected quantum effects are both causal and retrocausual since time is just another dimension in space-time. 4. The quantum effects are not deterministic because they are not algorithmic. Their complexity creates an illusion of randomness. 5. Consiousness/awareness in living organisms is an artifact of quantum effects that are interconnected to all other quantum effects. |
| Date: 2007/10/06 21:20:41, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi qetzal,
Third Choice, IDV I like it! Third Choice, IDV proposes the universal intelligence would be internal/inherent to the universe. And, yes, #8 applies to the "Who designed the designer?" question. Let me cheat and skip to the next part that was already brought up on Telic Thoughts. It was pointed out that I "...seem to be going in circles here." Here was my response... The observed reality shows that going in retrocausal circles is what the universe does at the quantum level. The universe is full of interconnected feedback loops. An infinite number of circles existing in Einsteinian/Minkowskian space-time. I am an electrical engineer. An oscillator circuit is basically a unity gain amplifier with the output feeding the input (phased shifted by 180 degrees). A feedback loop constantly "going in circles." Going in circles in time when it is just another dimension in space-time geometry makes for a thought provoking challenge. ... I am not intentionally trying to be frustrating. But when I visualize the reality of the universe as Minkowskian geometry, things that are obvious there become extremely atypical when translated into terms of thinking of Euclidean geometry progressing through time like a frame by frame movie with each frame containing a snapshot of the 3D universe. For example, photons (which appear as particles in Euclidean space traveling at the speed of light) take advantage of the ultimate "shortcut" available in Minkowskian geometry. Because of the shortcut, the Minkowskian distance traveled by a photon is zero. This leads to the implication that all photons in the universe are simply different glimpses of the same, single photon. But even this thought needs to be modified because "particles" are just an illusionary artifact of a Copenhagen-like wavefunction. ... In the Third Choice, ID version the timeless intelligence exercises agency in the same fashion as others might think a divine trinity of all-knowing, timeless intelligence can make choices and exercise agency. To our empirical senses, randomness (including living organisms making choices) is an illusion, solid matter is an illusion. It is possible that nothing is empirically real except gravity which is only perturbations in the Minkowskian geometry of our universe |
| Date: 2007/10/06 21:46:39, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi qetzal,
Libet's scientific observation deals with a half a second, not hours or days. Here is an experiment I thought of... Setup: Electrical device that periodically (once every two seconds) flashes a red light or a green light. Which light is flashed is based on a quantum effect. Which light is flashed is recorded and timestamped. Also timestamped and recorded is a two position toggle switch. The toggle switch is spring loaded for an unconnected center position. The switch can be toggled either left or right to indicate a choice. Test: The test subjects are told to move the switch based on the color light they see. They are encouraged to do this as quickly as they can even to the point of trying to anticipate which color will be shown. Analysis: The data will be sorted based on time of response. Any time greater than a half a second will be discarded (it is longer than the Libet delay). Statistical analysis of the responses will establish a level of confidence of a correlation between "guesses" and actual. BTW, if anyone wants to “steal” this idea. Be my guest. |
| Date: 2007/10/07 00:59:01, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Keiths, I would expect to get some data where the toggle happened clearly before the light event. That would be one set that I would analyze by itself. However, I suspect that would be a violation of superluminal information transfer that could result in a potential causal paradox. Quantum information can be superluminal and travel forward and backwards in time. Objective Reduction turns quantum information into normal information. It would be my impression that if the switch is actually thrown before the light is lit, then OR already happened and it is too late for the conscious decision. I would be focusing on the data where the switch was thrown immediately after the light is lit. It takes time for the neural signal to travel from the eyes to the brain and then to the hand. We know that time, classically. If there is statistical evidence the test subjects beat that time, it would suggest quantum information flow. If that is the case, we go to step two. We change the light pattern to be based on an algorithm function (psuedorandom number generator) instead of quantum effects. Then we rerun the experiment. If the quantum effects randomizer shows correlation and the algorithmic randomizer does not. It would suggest external quantum effects were directly influencing the quantum effects of the conscious decision-making process. This would be the prediction of the Orch-OR hypothesis. P.S. If anyone wants to "steal" this idea, be my guest. |
| Date: 2007/10/07 08:22:45, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi Keiths, You wrote..
<sigh> You really don't like General Relativity do you? Ok, even with Special Relativity, what do you think would happen if you took a quick trip to the moon and back at twice the speed of light? Don't let that negative square-root bother you, there are ways around it (complex numbers).
BTW, by adding "step two" I have made it so you have to claim the first step would be a false positive and the second step (control) would be a false negative. When does it become dogmatic refusal to accept this would be a confirmation of a scientific prediction? |
| Date: 2007/10/07 09:08:41, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi all, Here is an updated proposed experiment to test whether or not quantum effects contribute an explanation for the apparent paradox resulting from Libet's observation that there is a 500ms reaction time for conscious decisions. Setup: Electrical device that periodically (once every two seconds) flashes a red light or a green light. Which light is flashed is based on either a quantum effect (quantum randomizer) or an algorithmic calculation (pseudorandom generator). The quantum randomizer will be used or the primary testing and the pseudorandom generator for the control testing. During testing, which light is flashed is recorded and timestamped. Also timestamped and recorded is a two position toggle switch. The toggle switch is spring loaded to default to an unconnected center position. The switch can be toggled either left or right to indicate a choice. Test: The test subjects are told to move the switch based on the color light they see. They are encouraged to do this as quickly as they can; even to the point of trying to anticipate which color will be shown. Analysis: The data will be statistically analyzed for correlation between the test subject’s choice with the actual light. The correlation will then be plotted against the time delta between the light flash and the choice. The graph of the primary testing will then be compared to the graph of the control testing. It would be expected that choices made 500ms after the light flash would correlate well, whereas the choices made prior to the light flash wouldn’t correlate well at all. The focus of the analysis would be to determine the crossover point between correlated and uncorrelated. If, for example, the crossover point for the quantum randomizer is 100ms and the crossover point for the pseudorandom generator is 400ms, this would suggest conscious decisions are directly influenced by quantum effects. However, if there is no significant difference between the crossover points, then this would be a negative result to the Orch-OR hypothesis’ prediction. If anyone wants to "steal" this idea, by my guest. |
| Date: 2007/10/07 13:21:21, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creek Belly, Now why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good hypothetical by pointing out it is impossible? With General Relativity and Minkowskian space-time, faster-than-light communication inherently means going backwards in time. However, the ultimate scientific presumption is that the universe is consistent. Even the possibility of a causal paradox would be counter to that presumption. Therefore, it is impossible for normal information to go faster than the speed of light. However, non-local (superluminal) quantum effects have been observed in experiment after experiment. Quantum information doesn't run the risk of causal paradox because everything is in superposition until the whole interconnected mess collapses in an objective reduction. Therefore quantum information can be superluminal/timeless. Based on experimental observations, quantum information flow is superluminal and, therefore, not resticted by a "flow" of time.
I thought about varying the timing, but I want the test subjects to try to anticipate. I would expect they would get pretty good at timing it, but not perfect. I want a lot of data points in the 0ms to 500ms range. I think my suggested setup would get that. I find it interesting that you bring up the idea that a pseudo-random generator could somehow be "more random" than a quantum-based randomizer. The Orch-OR prediction is that quantum effects aren't random. We can, and would, run an analysis of our equipment to verify statistical randomness. Pseudo-random generators aren't random by definition; they are a result of an algorithm. It is even possible that a savant could figure out the algorithm and know the entire sequence. This is allegedly impossible for the quantum randomizer. That being said, I would agree that it is likely the quantum randomizer might be too crude to demonstrate what I would want it to demonstrate. However, this is a two-way street. If Orch-OR is right, the quantum effects are interconnected in both directions. There would be just as much “encouragement” for the quantum randomizer to match a conscious will as there would be for the conscious decision to match the quantum randomizer result. I think tuning the quantum randomizer’s decoherence time to 25ms (the period of the 40Hz EEG frequency) might help. At any rate, I would offer that the classical prediction is that the algorithmic pseudo-random generators should be less random and more likely to be anticipated than a naturally occurring randomizer. If the reverse is the case (by a statistically significant amount) I suggest it would be supportive of, at least, to the proposition that quantum effects are not truly random. And it would come close to rationalization to suggest there is no significance to an observation that consciousness is more capable of anticipating (or manipulating) quantum effects as compared to a non-random, complex algorithm. |
| Date: 2007/10/07 18:16:53, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Keiths, Thank you for providing the link. I would going to suggest that one myself. And thanks everyone for providing data points on reaction times. My focus would be on the conscious decision-making process. I still think it would be suggestive if quantum randomization resulted in choices being more correct and faster as opposed to algorithmic randomization. |
| Date: 2007/10/08 11:48:39, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
This is a reasonable observation, but allow me to offer something in defense. A lot of what I am quoting here is a copy and paste from Telic Thoughts. There, I have gotten in the habit (bad habit?) of making provocative scientific statements in hopes of provoking others to challenge me to defend it (thus getting them to think about my explanation). That is consistent with my obvious agenda. It is probably less necessary here. Getting people to challenge the science doesn't appear to be a problem. ;)
Thank you for recognizing possible value in the experiment. I have been trying to explain what I see as the difference between what Orch-OR predicts and standard precognition. Precognition implies an absolute state of the light being Red or Green in the future and the absolute knowledge of the state beforehand. Orch-OR suggests all quantum effects are interconnected in superposition until Objective Reduction. The light is both Red and Green (ala Schroedinger's Cat) as is the interconnected conscious "observation" of it. Quantum information is this fuzzy superposition of multiple states. In quantum computers, qubits are both 1 and 0 until decoherence. With this in mind, if conscious decisions are tied to this superposition choice ("left" and "right") which is entangled with observation of the superposition of a light state ("red" and "green"). The objective reduction of either would cause both to instantly (as in superluminally) collapse to a single state. It is this non-local joint collapse that had been observed in quantum experiments (Note, the terms I am using presume the Copenhagen interpretation. Those ascribing to the Many Worlds interpretation would explain things differently). A practical purpose of this in living organism would be efficiency and speed. This is what the folks at Berkeley lab are suggesting with their observation of quantum effects in photosynthesis. link What my proposed experiment is looking for is the possibility that quantum entanglement speeds up conscious decisions. This experiment wouldn't test for quantum entanglements within the body (e.g. eyes to brain to fingers) but would be looking for external quantum entanglements (quantum randomizer to test subject). I agree, it is a long shot, but I also agree with your assessment that "...if you did see a reproducible difference in subject response to the quantum sequence, (and if artifacts and experimental biases could be ruled out), it would be very hard for conventional science to explain it." The unlikely results would be consistent with the Orch-OR model of consciousness. |
| Date: 2007/10/08 11:54:27, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi keiths, Thanks for the link. As Wesley said, the time is task dependent. I am looking for a reaction time that requires a more obvious decision. Something more than responding to change. I have noticed some on the web, but the links where broken. If you run across one, could you let me know? Thanks. |
| Date: 2007/10/08 17:29:07, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
H Keiths, You wrote...
Ok, its done. I used the "z" and the "/" keys to make it more responsive. Here is the link. Thank you for the suggestion. Edit: I have updated the program. However, I wasn't able to get the quantum randomizer to actually work yet, so I simulated expected results. That is ok isn't it? |
| Date: 2007/10/12 12:12:01, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi OldMan. I tried to post the following but I haven't bought anything from Amazon under this name. I suggest this wouldn't be a recycled argument and might provide for putting Behe in an interesting position to answer. If anyone wants to copy and paste (or put it in your own words) be my guest.... Dr. Behe, Taking advantage of the ability to comment here, I wish to publicly ask you something that has bothered me. You have focused on the microscopic level to suggest that randomness is insufficient to explain observations. It is obvious that you are dealing at a level of detail that involves quantum mechanical effects. Experiments have shown quantum effects aren't random. Why was there so little discussion of quantum physics in your book Edge of Evolution when many scientists have been linking quantum physics to life processes. For example, Stapp, Patel and those at Berkeley lab who, this year, demonstrated photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical mechanism. Both you and Abbie Smith could be correct. Her observations could be correct and your analysis visa-vie randomness could also be correct. Random Mutation would turn out to be impotent if, in fact, non-random quantum effects are fundamental to life at the microscopic level. I would have thought you and CSC fellow, Henry F. Schaefer III, would have discussed something like this. |
| Date: 2007/10/12 12:45:42, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, Listen to Louis, he might be on to something. I agree with Richard Dawkins' review that Dr. Behe's Darwin's Black Box had a spark of conviction that Edge of Evolution does not. I know I won't have a hard time convincing many people here that Edge of Evolution wasn't very convincing from a science point of view. It appears Behe didn't even attempt to make a convincing scientific case, he offered no alternative, no hypothesis. BTW, how many people know who Henry F. Schaefer III is? Why haven't we heard more of Schaefer's scientific hypotheses? I don't have access to Amazon comments. Would someone who does please ask the question for me? |
| Date: 2007/10/12 13:07:39, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Tracy, Thank you for your reply. I'm not interested in trying to argue for or against the hypothesis in this thread. I am more interested in what Fritz Schaefer would be telling his fellow fellows at DI and why they might not think it would be politicially correct. Could you offer your opinion on whether Fritz Schaefer would likely agree with Patal that DNA uses quantum superposition in performing its function? |
| Date: 2007/10/12 14:46:34, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
To Smokey (JAM?), I think that was an excellence comment on Amazon. |
| Date: 2007/10/12 15:41:19, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, I managed to get my comment up (bought Battlestar Promo for $0.00). I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down. I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones. It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up. Thanks. P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?) |
| Date: 2007/10/13 08:16:11, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Keiths, In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is my method for fighting the ID Movement. Polarizing all issues plays into the hands of ID's PR strategists, IMO. To Louis - I will restate my understanding of the status of bioquantum mechanics on another thread. |
| Date: 2007/10/13 14:36:52, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, Ok, we are back on the air for detailed discussions. First a review of things from other threads. In The Voice from the Middle Ground, we got into a discussion about Special Relativity verses General Relativity. I think this concept is key to understanding the reality that includes cosmology, quantum physics along with biology. Special Relativity is NOT reality. It is incomplete. General Relativity is the observed reality. There is a single, inertial frame of reference. This means our universe exhibits Minkowskian Geometry (not Euclidean Geometry). From Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?... "In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the “absolute world”. The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski’s absolute world concept and Mach’s ideas on rotational movements…" To belabor the point, General Relativity and, therefore, Minkowskian geometry is an everyday reality... "Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is neither designed nor operated as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system. When the first satellite was launched, some engineers resisted the prediction that a noticeable gravitational time dilation would occur, so the first satellite was launched without the clock adjustment built into subsequent satellites. It showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. If general relativity suddenly stopped working tomorrow, the GPS control center in Colorado would know within hours; the relativistic correction to the timing is large enough to make GPS useless if it is not allowed for. Also, while it is true that GPS is not operated by the Defense Department as a test of general relativity, physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. An excellent account of the role played by general relativity in the design of GPS can be found in Ashby 2003."link Space-time is reality. Calculating space-like distances ("dl") in space-time adheres to the following equation... dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2 Where the four dimensions are complex quantities. Which means that a time-like distance ("ds") is just a different view of the exact same thing... ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 Photons (traveling at the speed of light) have a Minkowskian distance of ZERO whether calculated time-like or space-like. Quantum "paradoxes" like GHZ states are trivial to understand for photons since they can be anywhere and anywhen instantly. This provides an understanding of how any and all quantum effects can be interconnected regardless of distances in space and/or time. Hopefully, we can generally agree that quantum effects can be interconnected in space and time. The question becomes are they interconnected? I believe they are for the same reason I believe magnetic fields and electrical fields are interconnected. It makes for an understandable model. Maxwell's equations would be just a mathematical model if not for the consistency it has to observations. Penrose's mathematical model does the same thing for quantum observations. While there may be resistance to the implications of this, the alternatives are not that attractive. Either we continue to wait for someone to come up with a better idea (we have been waiting for eight decades) or we embrace a metaphysical concept called Many Worlds. Metaphysics is metaphysics whether Many Worlds or God. Once it is realized that quantum effects are interconnected, it is a short hop to realizing there is no such thing as randomness. A lack of randomness wasn't a problem when Newtonian Physics was king. The only possible sources for randomness are quantum effects and conscious decisions (free will). Psuedorandom generators are not random. If quantum effects are interconnected, their randomness is an illusion. Quantum effects are non-deterministic but they are also not random. This leave consciousness. Are conscious decisions random? Not if they are directly dependent on quantum effects. This would explain quantum physic's measurement problem. The observer doesn't "randomly" decide which measurement to take. Conscious decisions are interconnected with the quantum effects being measured. The implication of this is that the appearance of randomness in living organisms is a direct artifact of quantum effects. Before we review the evidence of living things directly using quantum physics, we need to discuss the concept of decoherence. The term "decoherence" harkens back to the time when scientists were arguing whether light was made up of waves, particles or both. After many experiments the prevailing thought was that a light wave collapsed into actual particle for some to-be-discovered reason. However, a universally acceptable reason never materialised and the term "decoherence" has morphed into a term loosely describing a process of transforming quantum effects into macro world observations. Quantum superpositions are generally being accepted as reality. Qubits are quantum bits that are entangled with other quantum bits whose states are both 0 and 1. This superposition state is unstable. Superposition can and does collapse when isolation is compromised. Why this happens is a subject of debate. How long can quantum states remain in superposition? Arguably they can remain in superposition for years. I say "arguably" because it is mostly theoretical but experiments have been performed involving things like pulsars with massive galaxies in between acting like dual-slit experiments. For a more down-to-earth experiment NIST has shown qubit superposition lasting 7 to 10 seconds. link Qubits demonstrate long-lasting interconnected quantum superposition is possible, but does this happen in living organisms? Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. ... How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." link While it is tempting to end the discussion here, quantum based photosynthesis doesn't explain how consciousness is interconnected to quantum effects (the final piece to solve the quantum measurement problem). Single-celled organisms avoid obstacles and predators, find food and engage in sex. How are they able to accomplish this? An obvious presumption is that the cell's cytoskeleton performs the combined function of skeleton, muscle and nervous system. The cytoskeleton is made up of microtubules and actin. Microtubules (MTs) are made up of tubulin dimers. Dr. Hameroff offers... Tubulin subunits within MTs are arranged in a hexagonal lattice which is slightly twisted, resulting in differing neighbor relationships among each subunit and its six nearest neighbors (Figure 9). Thus pathways along contiguous tubulins form helical pathways which repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows (the Fibonacci series). Alpha tubulin monomers are more negatively charged than beta monomers, so each tubulin (and each MT as a whole) is a ferroelectric dipole with positive (beta monomer) and negative (alpha monomer) ends. If the alpha and beta states of these small tubulins (8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm) can be in quantum superposition, it would provide an explanation for how the actions of living organisms are directly interconnected to quantum effects. It is reasonable to presume that tubulins are capable of being in quantum position since similar sized fluorofullerenes exhibit quantum behavior. link However, this is once again a situation where something can happen but it is questionable whether it does happen. DNA provides another possible example of life directly using quantum effects. Patel is refining the model (Grover's algorithm) of the search function inherent in the DNA... The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes. The processing power that quantum superposition provides, whether for photosynthesis, DNA processing or cellular awareness could be very useful to living organisms. Is it such a far-fetched presumption that life has evolved a method to take advantage of this useful tool? Life's direct dependency on quantum physics becomes obvious in the case of photosynthesis. It is also likely for DNA. While the case for microtubules is harder to make right now, too many observations are explained by it to dismiss it out of hand, IMO. |
| Date: 2007/10/13 16:49:22, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creeky Belly, Thank you for the reasoned and reasonable response. As to the 300 degree K situation. I would like to direct your attention to this link where the experiment was not run at cold temperatures. In fact, the Fullerenes (i.e. Bucky Balls) were heated to 900K. Here is the link to The wave nature of biomolecules and fluorofullerenes which used fluorofullerene which are 2.5 times larger than Fullerenes. The experiment was basically the same as the one for Fullerenes. From a 2005 Hameroff paper... b. Decoherence Decoherence is the disruption of quantum superposition due to energy or information interaction with the classical environment. Consequently quantum technology is generally developed in ultra-cold isolation, and physicists are skeptical of quantum computing in the “warm, wet and noisy” brain. However biological systems may delay decoherence in several ways (Davies 2004). One is to isolate the quantum system from environmental interactions by screening/shielding. Intra-protein hydrophobic pockets are screened from external van der Waals thermal interactions; MTs may also be shielded by counter-ion Debye plasma layers (due to charged C-termini tails on tubulin) and by water-ordering actin gels (Hameroff et al 2002). Biological systems may also exploit thermodynamic gradients to give extremely low effective temperatures (Matsuno 1999). Another possibility concerns decoherence-free subspaces. Paradoxically, when a system couples strongly to its environment through certain degrees of freedom, it can effectively “freeze” other degrees of freedom (by a sort of quantum Zeno effect), enabling coherent superpositions and entanglement to persist (Nielson & Chuang 2001). Metabolic energy supplied to MT collective dynamics (e.g. Fröhlich coherence) can counter decoherence (in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature). Finally, MT structure seems ideally suited for topological quantum error correction by the Aharonov-Bohm effect (Hameroff et al 2002). Attempting to disprove a role for quantum states in consciousness, Max Tegmark (2000, c.f. Seife 2000) calculated MT decoherences times of 10^-13 sec, far too brief for neural activities. However Tegmark did not address Orch OR nor any previous proposal, but his own quantum MT model which he did indeed successfully disprove. Hagan et al (2002) recalculated MT decoherence times with Tegmark’s formula[xliii] but based on stipulations of the Orch OR model. For example Tegmark used superposition of solitons “separated from themselves” along a microtubule by a distance of 24 nanometers. In Orch OR, superposition separation distance is the diameter of a carbon atom nucleus, 6 orders of magnitude smaller. Since separation distance is in the denominator of the decoherence formula, this discrepancy alone extends the decoherence time 6 orders of magnitude to 10^-7 seconds. Additional discrepancies (charge versus dipole, correct dielectric constant) extend the calculated decoherence time to 10^-5 to 10^-4 sec. Shielding (counter-ions, actin gel) extends the time into physiological range of tens to hundreds of msec. Topological (Aharonov-Bohm) quantum error correction may extend MT decoherence time indefinitely.[xliv] Is the brain truly “wet and noisy”? In gel state MTs are in a quasi-solid environment with ordered water. As for “noisy”, electrophysiological background fluctuations show ongoing “noise” to actually correlate over distances in the brain (Arieli et al 1996, Ferster 1996). Experimental evidence shows that electron quantum spin transfer between quantum dots connected by organic benzene molecules is more efficient at room temperature than at absolute zero (Ouyang and Awschalom, 2003). The same structures are found in amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine, tryptophan) in hydrophobic pockets of proteins. Other experiments have shown quantum wave behavior of biological porphyrin molecules (Hackermüller et al., 2003), and still others that noise can enhance some quantum processes (Beige et al 2004). Evolution has had billions of years to solve the decoherence problem (Section IXf). Hameroff has been explaining this a lot longer than I have. |
| Date: 2007/10/13 21:17:48, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, You wrote...
I thought we were talking about 300K decoherence. (entanglement and quantum calculations are a separate issue, IMO) The Bucky Balls are in superposition (i.e. coherence). I suggest the dual-split experiment is just an easy way to test for superposition and coherence. If you get an interference pattern, you have coherence. If you don't, you had early decoherence. You are, of course, correct in that currently we can only demonstrate long lasting coherence at cold temperatures (7 to 10 seconds). But, frankly, the actual decoherence time comes close to being a detail that I am willing to see worked out over time. Penrose/Hameroff predict decoherence times of around 25ms. Meanwhile, let's see how far we agree. Do you... 1. Agree/disagree that it is likely life directly uses quantum effects for photosynthesis? 2. Agree/disagree that it is likely that DNA function directly involves quantum effects? 3. Agree/disagree that it is likely the cytoskeleton is the mechanism for the appearance of single-cell awareness? 4. Agree/disagree that this awareness is likely due to the direct involvement of quantum effect in microtubules? 5. Agree/disagree that cytoskeleton awareness of neuron cells plays a part in the appearance of human consciousness? 6. Agree/disagree that synchronized microtubule decoherence is likely responsible for the 40hz (25ms) EEG frequency that corresponds to state of consciousness? Identify your level a skepticism all you want. I just want to know where your threshold is. |
| Date: 2007/10/14 13:47:05, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Creeky Belly, Here is a description of the Fullerene (i.e. Bucky Ball) experiment that is a little more readable. It includes... "To calculate the expected diffraction angles, we first need to know the de Broglie wavelength which is uniquely determined by the momentum of the molecule... Lambda = h / mv ...where h is Planck’s constant. Accordingly, for a C60 fullerene with a mass of m=1.2x10^-24 kg and a velocity of v=200m/s, we find a wavelength of 2.8 pm." That is 2.8 picometers 2.8x10^-12 = 6.63x10^-34 / (1.2x10^-24 * 200) A fullerene is one NANOmeter (10^-9) in diameter. Fluorofullerenes are bigger yet. I think this illustrates some main differences that you and I have in our views of this. I consider the superposition/coherence property fundamental to all quantum effects especially in the double-slit interference experiment. The "decoherence" question is basically how long can coherence be maintained for nanometer sized particles like tubulin dimers. From the above link... "The spatial transverse coherence of our source is almost negligible right after the oven. Inside the source, the coherence width is actually only of the order of the thermal deBroglie wavelength. As is true in general for extended sources with uncorrelated emitters, the visibility is then reduced by the fact that the many partial interferometers—each starting at one point in the source and forming two trajectories through the double-slit toward a point in the detector—acquire different phase differences along their path to a given spot on the screen. After the oven, we therefore need to enlarge the spatial coherence width by about five orders of magnitude in order to illuminate at least two neighboring slits coherently." In simpler English… The superposition states of individual BuckyBalls aren't very far apart when they come out of the oven. However the superpositions drift apart on their way through the experiment's two collimating slits that "improve the spatial coherence and limit the angular spread of the beam". This allows for the individual Bucky Balls to go through the 100 nanometer grating with enough quantum superposition spread to be detectable. Note, the experiment assumes the individual Bucky Balls remain in superposition for the entire 2.29 meter trip and don't undergo decoherence too early. At 200 meters/second, that means this very warm biomolecule can remain in superposition for at least 11.45 milliseconds. This experiment isolates the molecules in superposition via a simple vaccum, not via cold temperatures. 11.45 milliseconds isn't that far from the 25 milliseconds required for the Penrose/Hameroff model. I look forward to hearing your explanations as to how I am “misunderstanding” the situation. |
| Date: 2007/10/14 16:15:22, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, You wrote...
Thank you for your response. At least we have something to work with. Direct quantum effects for photosynthesis and DNA are ok, microtubules no. I am presuming this means your basic focus is on the timing of coherence/decoherence based on the size/weight of the biomolecule and lack of isolation. A tubulin monomer is about 350 times more massive than the nucleobase Guanine.
At this point, that is exactly what I am talking about. I am looking to see if it is possible for an isolated biomolecule that has a dimension of 4 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55K amu to remain in quantum superposition for around 25ms. It looks like researchers are on their way to showing this experimentally. For the purposes of our discussion, are you are willing to agree there is nothing fundamental preventing a tubulin monomer from being in a quantum superposition state for 25 ms as long as it "...isn't affected by thermal emission from other atoms, and isn't entangling itself with photons"? And, furthermore, do you agree the internal temperature of a biomolecule isn't a factor? I recognize there is still a long way to go even if you agree to this. However, I think this will help focus where we disagree. |
| Date: 2007/10/14 17:46:14, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, As to your curiosity about Hameroff, he recently put up a blog. I have posted a couple of attention-getting comments he hasn't responded to yet. If he does, I will ask him and I will let you know. Meanwhile, you wrote...
I see four sub-topics here... 1. "Transverse coherence" doesn't automatically translate into qubits. 2. Still need to explain isolation 3. Still need to explain "coherence across multiple molecules" 4. The system is probably useless without error correction. To the first point, I wasn't overly worried about the fact the C60 experiment had a different kind of superposition. The double-slit superposition is much harder to accomplish than having superpositioned states of the same biomolecule in essentially the same location. Doing it is relatively easy; detecting it is the hard part. It is the detection part that works at cross purposes with isolating it. Having a biomolecule perform feats of quantum superposition magic is worthless if it produces no output. However, if it produces output, it isn't isolated. Those building artificial quantum computers have the same dilemma. I suggest we combine questions about getting output with the isolation question and focusing on that next, if you agree. As to the "coherence across multiple molecules". I am probably more willing to accept that as a given based on my view of the inherent interconnectedness of quantum effects in space-time geometry. So, I don't have a ready answer to that one. I think we will have enough to talk about getting past the isolation question (i.e. warm, wet brain). I suggest tabling this one for later. As to the error correction. Dr. Hameroff has pointed out various inherent error correction mechanisms in his view the microtubule model. He even suggests it helps with decoherence in that the other tubulins literally prevent strays from getting out of line. I think we will be doing great if this as our only problem. I suggest tabling this one too, unless you feel it is essential for dealing with the isolation question. |
| Date: 2007/10/14 19:45:38, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi AFDave, I see you were already familiar with Dr. Walter Brown (I had advised you to take some lessons from him in my previous post). I think you need work harder on learning. Your critics are right. This is old news. Actually, I agree that another level of OOL is going to open up if and when nanobes are classified as life. Did nanobes come from space? Maybe, but that will put a crimp in the ID Movement's arguments, not evolution's. It will push back the amount of time RM + NS had to complete its work. As for YECers. It is just another obstacle that needs explained away. How old are those meteorites? |
| Date: 2007/10/14 20:46:59, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Jim, It was a trick question. According to Dr. Walter Brown our solar system's asteroids where propelled by superheated steam during the flood. And everyone knows the flood started when Noah was 600 years old. Which was 1656 years after the 6 day miracle of creation. In other words, 2340 BC or 4,347 years ago. Now this might help explain Stonehenge. You see some for the rocks didn't quite make escape velocity and if we calculate... You get the idea. Like I said, it’s just another minor detail that would need to be explained. |
| Date: 2007/10/14 22:59:03, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creeky Belly, You wrote...
This is why I broke things up into more manageable sub-topics. I don't understand your fundamental objection to presuming long quantum coherence times for isolated biomolecules. Here are the two states of tublin dimers... The peanut-shaped tubulin dimer switches between two conformations in which the alpha monomer flexes 30 degrees from vertical alignment with the beta monomer. These are referred to as open and closed states (Figure 8, Melki et al 1989, Hoenger and Milligan 1997, Ravelli et al 2004). link Here is the Ravelli 2004 paper showing the two different tubulin dimer configurations. Ravelli used the terms "curved" and "straight" instead of "open" and "closed". If I am understanding things correctly. There isn't much of a question that tubulin dimers exhibit two distinct states. This appears to be a scientific observation. What is being questioned is whether superposition of this bend is possible/likely if the tubulin dimers are appropriately isolated. Not to take too much advantage of your DNA concession, but DNA superposition would be of a similar nature. We aren't talking spinning electrons here. We are talking about the physical orientations of biomolecules. Just look at the pictures in the Ravelli paper. It just isn't that big of a difference. Bed Time. Will comment more tomorrow. |
| Date: 2007/10/15 10:08:19, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Louis, You wrote...
Welcome to the frustrating world of Quantum Physics and its measurement problem. In the opening post of this thread I described my version of the GHZ states (special coins) but pointed out that no peeking was allowed. This wasn’t a trivial note. The nature of Quantum Physics is very strict on the no-peeking rule. Experimenters have been trying to catch particles in the act of going through two slits in superposition for decades. They have tried every non-evasive trick in the book with no luck. They have even tried waiting until after the particles have already gone through the slits and it didn’t work. Google “wheeler quantum delayed choice” and browse the entries. We are building quantum computers and secured communication devices on the presumption that superposition is a reality even though we have never had it “show up” on countless experimental attempts to get it to do so. I will attempt in the future to provide further explanations of Hameroff’s description of how tubulin dimers are kept isolated. However, real life is keeping me quite busy lately. |
| Date: 2007/10/15 13:51:31, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, Thank you for your comment. You provided some very good points that will take some time for me to respond to. You correctly pointed out that a tubulin dimer is made up of two tubulin monomers. This makes for a total mass of 110K amu. I am adjusting my thinking accordingly. I will try to respond more fully later. |
| Date: 2007/10/15 14:41:55, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Louis, I am not sure what you are looking for here. Qetzal brought up the suggestion that the tubulin dimers are always in a given state when assembled as microtubules. I am looking into that. Is that what you are talking about? The interference pattern of the double slit experiment is the indirect evidence of superposition. Dr. Hameroff suggests that the gamma EEG frequency (30Hz to 80Hz) could be the indirect evidence of tubulin superposition. I am honestly trying to understand what kind of evidence you think an MRI would be able to detect. I understand, the existence of Gamma EEG waves correspond to the existence of consciousness (a lack of consciousness means a lack of Gamma EEG and visa-versa). I am presuming neurologists are looking hard for the fundamental source of Gamma EEG waves using MRI along with every other state-of-the-art instrument that is available. Is there a better hypothesis for the source of Gamma waves? |
| Date: 2007/10/15 15:34:05, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Jam, "No, I'm not!" (blame Jim Wynne) |
| Date: 2007/10/15 20:34:43, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
After doing some digging I have found that it is generally accepted that intact microtubules contain both configurations of tubulin. The Alpha tubulin monomer binds with GTP. The Beta tubulin monomer binds with either GTP or GDP. If Beta monomer binds with GDP the tubulin dimer is curved. A microtubule with curved tubulin dimers on the end cap will start falling apart with the curved tubulins becoming loose. Therefore the end caps of intact microtubules have straight tubulin dimers. However, the middle section can, and does, contain curved dimers. Here is a fairly easy to read paper from Mershin, Kolomenski, Schuessler and Nanopoulos titled... Tubulin dipole moment, dielectric constant and quantum behavior: computer simulations, experimental results and suggestions. It explains the GDP and GTP binding. The paper also includes this in its discussion section... Regardless of whether it turns out that tubulin and MTs are purely classical systems or they have a quantum nature, the excitation and detection of the theory-suggested ’flip waves’ would be an important step towards understanding the role that tubulin and MTs can play as binary switches and networks respectively, both in naturally occurring systems such as living cells as well as in synthesized structures. Note that the energy needed for a tubulin conformational change or ’flip’ is roughly 200 times lower than a conventional silicon-based binary switch, making laser-pulse induced switching feasible. This conformational change energy is also about 30 times larger than thermal noise at room temperature, making the system reasonably resilient to thermal noise. And its summary section... Theoretical efforts by us and others have strongly suggested that tubulin is near the "front lines" of intracellular information manipulation and storage. Our group has performed preliminary measurements on tubulin in an effort to supply experimentally determined parameters (such as the refractive index, polarizability and dipole moment) to apply to the various models of tubulin. ... We used computer simulation to calculate the electric dipole moments of the two tubulin monomers and dimer and found those to be |p?|=552D, |p?|= 1193D and |p??|=1740D respectively. We used refractometry to corroborate our previous SPR-derived result (equation(1)) for ?n/?c ~1.800ml/mg. The refractive index of tubulin was found to be ntub ~2.90 (3) and that gives the high frequency tubulin dielectric constant at ?tub ~8.41 (4). In addition, the highfrequency polarizability was found to be ?tub ~ 2.1x 10-33 C m2/V(5). Several methods were described to determine the low-frequency DC-p as well as to check for both coherence and entanglement among tubulin dimer dipole states. An experiment was suggested whereby using a perforated metal chip layered with a network of aligned MTs, and employing entangled photons in the SPR-exciting laser beam, it can be determined whether surface plasmons interacting with MTs can stay entangled and whether this entanglement can be propagated and conserved by the biomolecules. In its conclusion... The electric and energy-transduction properties of tubulin and the polymers it forms are important not only because of the role these play in intracellular protein interactions but also because it may well be that nature has already provided us with suitable nanowires, switches or even logic gates. Beyond the obvious benefit to the credibility or otherwise of the various "quantum brain models", determining the dipole moment of tubulin and its dynamics will further our understanding of tubulin and other similar proteins (such as actin) and will shed light on whether we can use these as the basis of biomolecular electronic circuits of even quantum information processing. Tubulin, microtubules and the dynamic cytoskeleton are fascinating systems and in their structure and function contain the clues on how to imitate nature in artificially fabricated biomolecular information processing devices paving the way for biobits and perhaps even bioqubits. While this paper presented a specific positive picture of the Orch OR model, it is just one of many talking about the different types of tubulin dimers that make up microtubules. Early papers talked about one type for the ends and the other type for the middle, but it was clear it is generally assumed both types are present in an intact microtubule. |
| Date: 2007/10/15 22:48:06, Link 71.31.149.45 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, You know I am an engineer and not a scientist, right? That being said. In 1951, two inexperienced young scientists put together a highly speculative model for the genetics. The model was humiliatingly wrong. The two were chastised and told to quit working on it. However, they were stubborn and after "borrowing" data obtained by more experienced scientists, they got lucky and this time the model they put together resulted in them eventually being awarded the Nobel Prize. The two scientists, of course, were Watson and Crick and the model was DNA’s double helix. Stuart Hameroff is 60 years old. He has been working on this for his entire professional life. Do you think he really cares whether or not you give him "the benefit of the doubt"? Sir Rodger Penrose probably cares even less. Jack A. Tuszynski, Avner Priel, Arnolt J. Ramos, Horacio F. Cantiello, Nancy J. Woolf, Vahid Rezania, Michael Hendzel and others might care. They are the ones doing the experiments. I find Orch OR interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all, it makes for a good hypothetical in the ID/Darwin debates. Would either side accept this as a reasonable hypothesis? Second, it is thought provoking both for others and for myself. Third, it feels right. The details aren't as important as the fact that things fit together. Too many questions have gone unanswered for too long. Orch OR goes a long way to answering the big ones. Besides, SteveStory said he was looking to provide you guys with something more substantial than the cotton candy opponents you a used to dealing with. Now if you would rather argue with AfDave.... |
| Date: 2007/10/16 13:26:12, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, Please pardon me for threatening you with AfDave but the point was to put things into perspective. I'm just an engineer trying to make sense of things. That, and having some fun being a quasi-troll. You wrote...
It is the "until then..." where the philosophical battle takes place. What are the default presumptions? I am not challenging established ToE principles, neither is Mike Gene. What is your presumed answer for the GHZ states described in the opening post to this thread? What is your presumed answer for the source of Gamma EEG waves? What is your presumed answer for how single-celled organisms can avoid obstacles, find food and engage in sex? I suggest that many have a philosophical bias towards explanations that presume solid matter is operating in a universe of Euclidean Geometry where time always marches forward like a frame by frame movie (i.e. “Materialism”). “Materialism” is a philosophical outlook. I think it is outdated considering what we know from quantum physics. The Many Worlds interpretation is a desperate attempt to hang on to the security blanket of presuming solid particles actually exist. I am not suggesting God or even Intelligent Designer(s) should be presumed. A lot of people have complained that my philosophical leaning is “Naturalism” which, to some, is just as bad as “Materialism”. We can’t escape our biases. We all have them. But I suggest in this case, you might be attempting to presume a biased position that you have no right to claim as the default ("conventional models"). I am an engineer putting together my model. You put together yours and we will compare them. Ok? |
| Date: 2007/10/16 16:10:45, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi Creek Belly, You wrote...
Treating it "classically" is your philosophical bias. Thinking of things as solid object existing in a specific location in Euclidean Space where the frame by frame movie is always moving forward in time is a biased view point. This view isn't consistent with scientific observations. You might as well be saying that we must treat the world as flat except under special circumstances where its "roundness" manifests itself.
I disagree, absent a default explanation, all I have to do is present a consistent model for testing. You present your model, I present mine. We compare. What does your model say about single-celled organisms avoiding obstacles, finding food and engaging in sex? |
| Date: 2007/10/16 16:39:54, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, You did as I asked. You offered an explaination for finding food. I like your explaination better. I learned something. Thanks. However, your GHZ states explaination wasn't as good and neither of us are neurologists. I am looking looking into understanding gamma brain waves better than I do. I will post what I find. |
| Date: 2007/10/16 17:17:31, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Creek Belly, You wrote...
LOL Minkowskian Geometry is reality. You can unset your watch by it. link qetzel did a good job on the finding food explaination. Why don't you give a shot at explaining the GHZ states problem. I say it isn't a problem once you accept Minkowskian Geometry's... dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2 ...is reality. Quantum effects are interconnected. All quantum effects are interconnected, in the GHZ states the interconnectedness is detectable, in "classical" situations it is not. That is my explaination. What's yours? |
| Date: 2007/10/16 19:45:59, Link 71.31.149.45 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
You wrote...
Quantum effects are interconnected because quantum effects are patterns in the single space-time wavefunction that is our universe. Think of a Mandelbrot Set. All of the Mandelbrot Set's features are interconnected. However, the interconnection of some features are more obvious than others. Here is a link to a Mandelbrot Set claimed to be the size of the known universe. Note, this is a very simple function with only ONE complex dimension. Our universe has at least four. Queue the DEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS.
At best you only mathematically described the observation and without offering an explanation. On the other hand, you might have provided support for what I have been saying. Quantum effects are interconnected pure states of the wavefunction existing in Minkowskian space-time. Some are entangled, some are not. BTW, are you still holding on to a dogmatic belief that matter has substance and there is such a thing as randomness? It is hard to see past your own philosophical presumptions. |
| Date: 2007/10/18 13:39:35, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Note, even though the Amazon site says comments are disabled, they aren't. Here is my comment to Behe's reply to Korthof... Korthof's opening sentence is... "Readers interested in 'Intelligent Design Theory' will be disappointed." Korthof explains... "But, there is no design theory in this book. There are a bunch of observations and suggestive allusions to a theory. But not a coherent treatment of design theory. Even 'nonrandom mutation', which is an important part of Behe's design claims, occurs only 3 times in contrast to 'random mutation' which occurs 171 times. Is it really unfair or unreasonable to expect in this book a coherent description of design theory after more than 10 years since his Darwin's Black Box?" Korthof sums up nicely why my expectations resulted in disappointment when I read through the Edge of Evolution. Dr. Behe, many times you have suggested the key to understanding is at the microscopic level. Yet you refrain from exploring the obvious non-random mechanism available from quantum physics. Why? |
| Date: 2007/10/25 15:25:22, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi qetzal, Thanks for pointing out the paper. I am still around, but Real Life is demanding a lot of my focused attention. A lot of things have been happening recently that suggest things are coming together of the idea of quantum consciousness. The "warm, wet brain" dismissal is losing traction. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 22:07:15, Link 71.31.148.224 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Let me start by asking for forgiveness for the length of this post. It will take a lot to show the difference between smoke and mirrors BS and what I think it an honest attempt. Unlike most people I think there is some room for giving the benefit of a doubt to a select few ID proponents. Specifically, Mike Gene. Mike and I disagree on a lot of things. But I think he is sincerely trying to approach the ID question honestly. I think of him as an ID scientist even though Mike doesn't claim ID is science. My opinion of Dembski probably matches those of you who detest the ID Movement. Here is your chance to reward sincere effort, even if you think the effort is valueless. Listen and understand what I am presenting. For those of you who only want to blindly defend the status quo, please don't bother those willing to think for themselves. I wish you all the luck in fighting the Culture War against those who are your mirror opposites. You all deserve each other. Mike Gene's book, The Design Matrix finally came out a month ago. I have read it. It is not bad. It is the best pro-ID book I have seen by far (wasn't that hard). Mike actually presents his arguments. They are understandable. Discussing it isn't like nailing jello to the wall. Mike builds to his conclusion in the last chapter (Chapter 10) which is a proposed methodology for inferring design. Please consider getting Mike's book and reading it for yourselves. It is available for $16.47 at Amazon "The Design Matrix is a method by which you can score a particular feature according to four different criteria to assess and quantify the strength of a design inference." The four criteria are… 1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed? 2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon? 3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon? 4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon? By necessity, this is going to be an oversimplification of Mike's process. I very much encourage people to get The Design Matrix to read how Mike explains that, while subjective, this method has similarities of scoring in the Olympics along with medical and other scientific circumstances. Mike chooses to use a system of scoring -5, -4, …, -1, 0, +1, …, +4, +5 for each criteria. In addition to matching the duck versus rabbit theme prevalent throughout the book (-5 = "looks like a duck", +5 = "looks like a rabbit") it also allows for the balanced position being "0". Mike's first example is to test the book, itself, for a design inference. "Since the book is perfectly analogous with other books that are known to be designed, we can give it a Analogy score of 5. As for Discontinuity, I can safely say that there is no hurricane, volcano, beam of energy, or any other non-teleological force that can substitute for me as author. As such, the writings found within are fundamentally discontinuous with anything known to be caused by non-teleological processes found in nature. The book thus deserves a Discontinuity score of 5. When we turn to the criterion of Rationality … I'll humble myself and take a mere score of 4. … I'll give myself a Foresight score of 3." Mike's explanation for the Foresight score is longer than I wish to type. I guess you will just have to get the book if you want to know. ;) The resultant score for inferring the book itself is designed is 4.25, near a "strong" indicator of design. Mike provides 6 other examples of the Design Matrix method being applied to real world situations. "[A] pseudogene, a string of nucleotides that has no function [has a] Design Matrix score of -4.5". "I would give the genetic code an overall Design Matrix score of 3." In the book, Mike goes into detail as to how he arrived at these numbers. Right away you will note Mike's approach is significantly different from Mr-I-don't-do-pathetic-details. In 2005 Dembski wrote a paper called Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence While Dembski has filled it with a lot of bombastic smoke and slight of hand, there is enough meat to actually understand it which I have taken the time to do. I believe there are several critiques demonstrating the weaknesses of this paper. However, until Mike Gene's proposal, it was the only game in town. Asking IDists to give it up was like... well... asking them to repudiate God. We have been having an interesting discussion over a Telic Thoughts comparing Dembski's method to Mike's. When I couldn't shame any Dembski supporter into providing an example like Mike did, I supplied my own and used both methods to attempt to infer design. Here is the updated version (the one in TT had some minor errors).... ------------------------------------------------------------ Let’s play YAHTZEE! For those unfamiliar with the game. Yahtzee is a dice game where you roll five dice in an attempt to get certain patterns. Each player gets three chances to get a pattern they need. In the real Yahtzee game there are 13 different patterns to choose from. For this exercise, we will simplify it to four patterns. The four patterns are… 1. Yahtzee = all five dice are the some (i.e. five of a kind) worth 50 points 2. Straight = five dice in a sequence (i.e. 1 thru 5 or 2 thru 6) worth 40 points 3. Full House = pair and three of a kind (e.g. Two 4s and Three 6s) worth 25 points 4. Chance = none of the above worth the total of the dice As in the real Yahtzee game players must score one of the patterns each turn. A score of “0” must be used if the pattern does not match. In our simple game, the maximum total score is 145 points (50 + 40 + 25 + 30). The player with the highest total score wins. My little sister and I used to play Yahtzee alot. Being the brat she was, she would cheat if she thought she could get away with it. In this hypothetical example, I will be using the two design inference methodologies to detect cheating by my sister. From page 21 of Dembski's paper… X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)] Where… X = "context-dependent specified complexity" M = Number of throws N = Number of dice T = Pattern ?S(T) = Number of T-like patterns in the Semiotic agent’s lexicon. P(T|H) = Probability of pattern T happening according to H The Semiotic agent’s basic lexicon is… “Yahtzee” (five dice all the same) “Straight” (five dice in sequence) “Full House” (a pair and a three of a kind) “One” “Two” “Three” “Four” “Five” “Six” The lexicon provides for different patterns having different probabilities yet be able to fully describe any single throw. For example the “One”, “Two”, “Three”, “Four”, “Five” throw could be simplified to “Straight” whereas “Two”, “Five”, “One”, “Six”, “Four” can’t be reduced to a simpler pattern. Both throws have equal probably but one is more specified than the other. First Turn The practical application is a situation where my sister and I are playing Yahtzee in the livingroom. We set up the game and I go to the kitchen to get a drink. My sister rolls the dices and yells out that she got “Four”, “Five”, “One”, “Six”, “Four”, I say “fine”. Mathematically ?S(T) is 7779 (3+6^5) since the lexicon we are using doesn’t allow for a pattern reduction in this situation. X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)] M = 1 (first throw) N = 5 (five dice) ?S(T) = 7779 P(T|H) = 1/7776 (five dice have 7776 permutations) X = –log2[ 1 • 5 • 7779 • 1 / 7776 ] = slightly negative, definitely less than 1 My sister shouts, “I’m keeping the fours” and rolls the three dice then says “I got another four, a six and a two”. I say “fine”. X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)] M = 2 (second throw) N = 4 (average four dice per throw) ?S(T) = 7779 P(T|H) = 1/216 (three dice have 216 permutations) X = –log2[ 2 • 4 • 7779 • 1 / 216 ] = negative, less than 1 My sister shouts, “I’m rolling the last two dice” and rolls the pair of dice then says “I got a pair of fives, full house!”. I say “you got lucky”. X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)] M = 3 (third throw) N = 3.33 (average 3.333 dice per throw) ?S(T) = 9 P(T|H) = 1/36 (two dice have 36 permutations) X = –log2[ 3 • 3.333 • 9 • 1 / 36 ] = negative, less than 1 According to Dembski’s methodology I should not infer that my sister cheated. What about the Design Matrix? Analogy – this situation isn’t similar to how my little sister cheats. She usually isn’t that subtle, however I am in the kitchen. We will score it a -2. Discontinuity – The full house evolved over three throws. Score it a -4 Rationality – Big help to my sister’s score but not the best, Score it a +3 Foresight – Full House isn’t that hard to get, doesn’t overly predict a future need, score it a 0 Average score = -0.75 Looks like a lucky duck Both methods infer that my sister didn’t cheat. Second Turn After this I take my turn and notice I forgot to put ice in my drink and return to the kitchen. My sister rolls again and yells out that she got a “Three”, “Three”, “Three”, “Three”, “Three”. I respond with “I think you cheated”. This time the lexicon allowed for pattern reduction to something the Semiotic agent (me) could recognize as a “Yahtzee”. In this case ?S(T) is 9. X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)] M = 4 (fourth throw) N = 3.75 (average 3.75 dice per throw) ?S(T) = 9 P(T|H) = 6/7776 (only six of the 7776 permutations are a Yahtzee) X = –log2[ 4 • 3.75 • 9 • 6 / 7776 ] = 3.26 = greater than 1 Dembski’s method suggests Design (cheating) should be inferred What about the Design Matrix? Analogy – this situation is exactly how my little sister usually cheats. We will score it a +5. Discontinuity – First roll means scoring it a +5 Rationality – The ultimate help to my sister’s score, another +5 score Foresight – A straight is actually harder to get than a Yahtzee, but a Yahtzee is still hard and, therefore, useful for the future. Score it a +3 Average score = +4.5 Looks like a wascally rabbit (who cheats) Both methods infer that my sister cheated. Third Turn Being the nice brother I am, I let my sister get away with it and we continue playing. To my utter amazement, on her very next turn she throws five ones. X = –log2[M·N· ?S(T)·P(T|H)] M = 5 (fifth throw) N = 4 (average 4 dice per throw) ?S(T) = 9 P(T|H) = 6/7776 (only six of the 7776 permutations are a Yahtzee) X = –log2[ 5 • 4 • 9 • 6 / 7776 ] = 2.85 = greater than 1 Dembski’s method suggests Design (cheating) should be inferred What about the Design Matrix? Analogy – my little sister has never cheated this well before, but maybe she has practiced. We will score it a -4. Discontinuity – First roll means scoring it a +5 Rationality – This doesn't help my sister since she already has a Yahtzee, a -5 score. Foresight – She needs a straight, this is of no future help, another -5 score Average score = -2.25 making it a duck Dembski’s method infers my sister cheated. The Design Matrix infers she did not. What do you think? As Fox News would say “We report, you decide” ----------------------------------------------------------- Other than mixing "Design" with "Context-sensitive Specified Complexity" I feel I have appropriately applied Dembski's method. Please ask for clarification on either method and I will try to explain it the best I can. Like I said, I have taken the effort to understand Dembski's paper. I don't want to get too far into trying to defend Mike's method. My point here is to point out that Mike is making an honest effort at communicating a real idea as compared to the snake oil salesman approach of Dembski. Here is the link to the Telic Thought thread where we are discussing it. You might want to take a look at it. I think some people might be squirming over the comments. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 01:06:33, Link 71.31.148.224 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Copied from Telic Thoughts.link Hi Bradford, Several comments ago, you asked me a curious question...
I didn't know what to make of it at the time, if I understand your meaning the answer is "No, I am not being coached." After reflecting on its implication I am taking it as a compliment. Yes, what you see is what you get. I have no one backing me up. I did the research myself, These are my actual opinions. These are my words (sometimes misspelled). I am an "army of one". No one is whispering instructions in my ear. Practically the only e-mail "Thought Provoker" gets comes from the Thought Provoker blog. No one on either side of the ID debate knows who I am other than through these two contact points. Now, you have contacted my Thought Provoker e-mail to setup my Guest Hosting on your blog, twice (and I appreciated that). The only ID critic to ever directly contact Thought Provoker was Creeky Belly to question me about my thoughts concerning quantum physics. Since day one, my clear agenda has been to provoke independent thinking. I am not asking people to follow me. I don't want people to follow anyone. The cure to dogmatic thinking is discouraging group think. You don't do that by engaging in group think yourself. It could be argued that Joy has coached me this the past. But all our conversations have been public. Joy has made it quite clear that she thinks I am wasting my breath here. She has tried to patently tell me that this is one big arena where everyone has chosen sides and will forever remain faithful to their dogma to the bitter end. Maybe she is right. But I am enough of a Don Quixote type that I get satisfaction out of trying my best. People may laugh at my tilting at windmills but damn if I am going to be accused of not trying hard enough. People on both sides are finding comfort in their group think havens. How can you think independently surrounded by a bunch of people nodding their heads whenever you repeat the same old lines over and over? And for your information, while I have first posted this on Telic Thoughts, I will also be posting this on After the Bar Closes. I have presented a comparison of the two Design inference methods there also. There is already a comment making a sweeping pronouncement that all attempts at trying to infer design are equally bogus. This is further confirmation of the charge ID proponents make about their critics. That is that ID critics are dogmatic in their belief in randomness. The default position is randomness can do anything and everything. It is randomness in the gaps. Hey ID critics, try putting aside your dogmatic belief long enough to come up with your own ID proposal. How would you go about testing for a lack of randomness? Are you capable of thinking independently enough to put together a serious suggestion? As for the ID Proponents… It has been suggested in this thread that ID has a framework on which you are trying to build a legitimate proposal. What framework? Whether you want to admit it or not, I have a pretty good understanding of Dembski's inference methodology that was the subject of this thread. Aside from a few timid questions about me personally and a suggestion my example may be a misapplication, my analysis stands and Dembski's model is found wanting. Truth be known, Mike Gene's model is pretty weak too. But I think it can be salvaged. The part about Foresight has potential. However, the biggest thing going for it is that it has realistic expectations. There is no magic bullet. There is no absolute yes/no answer. It you can pardon the terminology, the answer is going to be an evolutionary process if it even exists. So, if you want to continue to have faith in an ID Movement and let their leaders do your thinking for you, don't expect much sympathy. You will deserve what you get. Mike Gene has put together a new framework. A recognition that ID Science isn't about replacing Mainstream Evolutionary Theory, it is about augmenting it. That it will take a "Consilience of Clues" to detect the answers buried in deep time. And the answers will undoubtedly be a continuum, a mixture, of design and non-design. This way ID proponents can tell their critics to go pound salt when they make accusations about ID being anti-science, because it won’t be. The alternative is to do it the way Dr. Wells envisions it…
link Personally, I would think both sides would rather DO SCIENCE! |
| Date: 2008/01/05 10:50:08, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, The big banner in the upper left hand corner says "Antievolution, The Critic's Resource". It led me to believe there might be an interest in what I had to say. If you have no idea why the concept of "randomness" is being challenged by ID proponents, frankly you need to get a clue. If you just sit here waiting for people to make serious presentations just so you can pontificate that it isn't good enough, you shouldn't be surprised that no one capable of offering you a challenge will post here. By the time ID gets to the level of peer reviews and experiments, they won't have to come to you, you will be coming to them because they don't have to work very hard at all to get a following. I happen to be a free-lance independent with anti-religious leanings. Those more loyal to the ID Movement would be perfectly happy for you to continue napping in you Group Think induced stupor. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 12:44:23, Link 216.89.108.10 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, I am at work today so I can't spend much time replying. You might want to take a look at Telic Thoughts thread. Your mirror opposites are having similiar reactions. How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with? link |
| Date: 2008/01/06 10:28:05, Link 71.31.148.224 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi All, Bob O'H wrote "How dare you teach them a third chord." accompanied by Richardthughes' "de-dur-de-...-dur-de-dur-de-dur Another #1" I have to hand it to you guys. At least you provide some quality entertainment. Maybe, you are on to something. Maybe, I've just fallen victim to thinking "even I could do better than this and I don't believe in the stuff" and then getting so carried away trying to make a convincing case, I started convincing myself. BTW, my main focus is still bioquantum physics and the Hameroff/Penrose Orch OR model. However, Dembski, DaveScot and their flock of well-trained followers managed to get me riled up with their hypocritical treatment of Mike Gene and his book. In case you missed it, here is the Uncommon Descent link to the thread I am talking about. I am engaging in a little payback effort. Instead of a Henry Moore sculpture, would there be interest in a Design Matrix analysis of the proverbial finding a Mount Rushmore scenario? This has been suggested in the Telic Thoughts thread. I could hit two birds with one stone that way. |
| Date: 2008/01/06 11:06:51, Link 71.31.148.224 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Richardthughes. You wrote, "But its not science, is it?" Mike Gene agrees with you. "It's arbitrary rankings." Mike argues otherwise. Are what Olympic judges and medical professionals do "arbitrary"? They maybe somewhat subjective, but not arbitrary Edit: Well... most of the time... well... it is what they are SUPPOSED to do most of the time... I will tell you what. You write a book and sell it for less than $20, I will buy it. Deal? Design Matrix is $16.74 on Amazon BTW, I would like to make use of your "Critic's Resource" to find out what you guys have on a RogerRabbitt. He has been around since the ARN days. If you wish to tell me privately. I can be reached at dfcord (at) hotmail.com Thanks |
| Date: 2008/01/06 11:35:17, Link 71.31.148.224 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
No database hits on RogerRabbitt? No one has a clue on who he is? |
| Date: 2008/01/07 10:11:14, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Slpage, For what it is worth, I personally agree that Analogy (#1) is weak. It shouldn't be equally weighted with the others. I agree that Discontinuity (#2) is strong. However, I think Foresight (#4) is as strong, if not stronger. As an illustration, I take out a deck of cards and shuffle it. I ask you to cut them. I look you in the eye as I pick up the cards and prompt you to agree or disagree that they are mixed up. I then tell you that I can predict the first five cards and tell you what they will be. Sure enough, the cards are what I predicted. I suggest the prediction is one of the strongest indicators that the appearence of the five cards was not the product of chance and that design should be inferred. This example also provides a little credit for analogy. I will explain later. |
| Date: 2008/01/07 17:39:05, Link 216.89.108.10 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Doc Bill et all, Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I am not trying to convince you that Mike Gene's isn't valueless (i.e. "garbage"). I am just trying to demonstrate Mike Gene's method is less offensive than Dembski's <fill-in-your-choice-of-description> Got to run, will comment more later. |
| Date: 2008/01/07 20:04:11, Link 71.31.148.224 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi all, Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example. Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit. As I pointed out the prediction is the major clue to realizing the card trick had more of a telic aspect than not. One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design". Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design". This is something Dembski does not do. The significance of this can be shown in the card trick example. It was possible that the amature magician doing the card trick could have messed up and the cards would not have come out as they did. There was a chance the trick would have failed. Dembski presumes design is NOT a "chance hypothesis". This presumption exposes Dembski's presumption of a perfect design (from a perfect designer). With Mike's method, the prediction could have been close, but not perfect, causing a minor shift of the score towards the "chance" end, not a total reversal. It is more realistic to recognise that chance and "design" is a mixture, not an either/or. However, in the hypothetical the prediction was spot on, causing a +5 for the Foresight catagory. The Rationality of this is to provide entertainment. Score it a +3 (not that good of entertainment value). The Discontinuity was mostly null. The card pattern didn't develop over time but the pattern looked random. Score it a 0. For the Analogy, even though the exact mechanism wasn't known (reversed cut? Switched decks? Palmed cards?, etc). The aspects of the situation had an analogous feel of other card tricks. I had attempted to provide a slightly unusual version, score it a +4. For a total score of 12/4 = 3. We are reasonably sure this was "Design". I have been putting "Design" in quotes for this comment because I agree that is a loaded word. "Not-by-chance" would be a better term in my opinion. Either way, it is less useless than Dembski's method, IMO. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 09:38:58, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
FYI, here is a follow up comment I made on Telic Thoughts. Our discussion got the attention of a lot of old timers from the ID camp. This gives me the impression that Dembski might be looking in on this one. Here is the Link for those who are interested. One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena. 1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws 2. Unspecified, via Chance 3. Specified, via Design 4. Unknown The paper that is the subject of the thread focuses on infering category number 2 is "less likely than not". That leaves the other three catagories. What if the second explaination doesn't apply to any phenomenon? What if true randomness doesn't exist? Only the appearance of randomness, similar to a psuedorandom number generator. Fifth Monarchy Man spoke like the ethical NOMA rejecting Theist he is and indicated that would be fine by him. Either a designer or a law giver, they all point to God. On the other side, Valerie wrote…
Which was a very good variation of the point I am making. I noted she talked about quantum-mechanical UNCERTAINTY, not randomness. I suspect this was a reference to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which was a general description of quantum weirdness at the beginning of tbe study of quantum physics. However, it appear the uncertainty is not due to hidden local variables as many scientists were presuming back in the 1920s. It is the lack of our ability to describe quantum effects algorithmically that makes it uncertain. Countless quantum experiments show that non-local measurements effect the outcome. Measure the linear polarization of two out of three entangled photons and you know, with certainty, the circular polarization of the third. However, measuring the circular polarization of the first two, results in the opposite circular polarization of the third. This paradox is real and is not random. So real that we are developing quantum computers based on it. This non-local quantum interconnectness occurs regardless of how separated the measurements are in either space or time. Any uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge, not randomness or "chance". IMO, there is no such thing as "Chance Hypotheses". Everything is via natural law or interconnected quantum effects. Who or what is behind the interconnected quantum effects is as metaphysical as discussing who or what created the universe and its laws. Some people, myself included, consider the exploration of these kinds of questions to be philosophy and not science. When it comes to philosophy, I take a page from Socrates' book and suggest it is the wise man who knows he doesn't know the Truth. On the other hand, Creationists and people like Fifth Monarchy Man feel they do know the one and only Truth. Which is fine as long as they don't try to hide this agenda. They are entitled to their belief and even entitled to use tax-free charitable donations to do whatever research they feel is appropriate in support of their belief. Now, one of the questions in this thread is to discuss whether Dembski provided a "sound" analysis that makes a modest scientific suggestion or is the science here just a "cheap tuxedo" disguise in an attempt to promote a belief in a "Designer", aka "Creator", aka God. When taken as a modest scientific suggestion, Dembski's analysis provides support for something I call the Third Choice. That is that neither randomness nor God should be considered the default explanation. The obvious, experimentally supported, explanation is that interconnected quantum effects is the fundamental organizing force of the universe. Interconnected quantum effects is the suggestion that is backed up with a positive “warrant”. Simply attacking opposing hypotheses is too easy and doesn’t provide affirmative support. Even more so, when it is done with a hand-waving flourish that it is sufficient to consider only a single hypothesis (the most likely) instead of the entire set of hypotheses AS A SET (not divide and conquer). |
| Date: 2008/01/20 10:23:33, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Wesley, I wouldn't disagree with you. That is why I hedged my description with "three or four". It appears Dembski does like projecting more certainty than is warranted. This is normal for people trying to lead a movement. "Hell no, we might not go" just doesn't have the appeal a movement needs. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 10:41:49, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, You wrote...
Yes and no. Would a Mandelbrot Set be considered deterministic even if its equation was unknowable? Not "unknown", but "unknowable". Sir Roger Penrose proposes that quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random. Quantum effects are artifacts of one giant multidimensional wave function in the space-time geometry that is our universe. Think of an unknowable, multidimensional Mandelbrot Set. Here is a Mandelbrot Set claimed to be the size of the known universe. To back up his proposal, Penrose points to the implications of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems. This, along with his background in mathematically modeling Black Holes for a living and figuring out non-algorithmic things like aperiodic tilings that showed up in quasi-crystals, makes for powerful support that if there is anyone qualified to understand this, it would be Penrose. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 12:43:52, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
| Bumped for Doc Bill |
| Date: 2008/01/20 12:45:36, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
Hi Bill
My definition of "design" is probably not the same definition that either Dembski or Mike Gene uses. I consider the Mandelbrot Set to be not only a design, but a real world example of "design". I have no proposed "metric or metrics with with to measure it". However, I happen to be of the opinion that Mike Gene is at least making an honest attempt to provide a metric. Whereas, Dembski's method is more an argument than a metric or definition of "design". As for my "quantum ramblings" and their relationships with brains and quantum consciousness. I bumped my "The Magic of Intelligent Design" thread for you. But I will warn you. Real Life is still taking a big toll on my time. I doubt I will be able to get into it heavily again. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 15:28:07, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Doc Bill, Did you expect me to object to anything you said in your last comment? Maybe you aren't aware that I am an Atheist in the same vein that Richard Dawkins is an Atheist. Technically, I am agnostic concerning fairies, orbiting tea pots and God. Yes, I consider a straight line "design". Yes, I consider everything in nature "design". Obviously, many ID proponents have the presumption that design must come from a designer, but once they allow the terms to be separated for whatever reason (ethical or not) then everything has detectable "design". The arrangement of the stars is "design". The arrangement of ice crystals in a snowflake is "design". The shape of a simple stone is "design". In my first toe-to-toe debate with an ID proponent, I asked for a definitive example of something that is not designed. He was, of course, stumped. It was obvious he believed everything was designed by God. Since then it has been obvious to me that most ID proponents have the same issue. Some are just more tenacious in avoiding the issue. To me design is something to be discovered like existence. Think of light. You might question its state of existence, but once you start understanding things like Maxwell's equations and quantum physics its hard not the appreciate its design. Note, Mike Gene is one of the few ID proponents offering examples of things he considered undesigned (more accurately "less designed" on a continuum). P.S. Here is an online dictionary definition for "design"...
I think the second definition is probably closest to what I am talking about. As for metrics. Can you provide me a metric for the term "existence"? Because if it exists, I say it has the property of “design”. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 20:12:41, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi qetzal, You asked...
"Predetermined" doesn't make much sense for something that transcends space and time (no before or after). "Fixed" might be a better term. The web of interconnected quantum effects are fixed in the space-time geometry that makes up our universe. And yes, this concept has implications to the subject of "free will". However, I have gotten used the the idea. It doesn't make any difference to my actions. The situation from a personal point of view hasn't changed. To us, time flows. To the space-time universe, time is just one of multiple dimensions. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:08:21, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Richardthughes, As it so happens, I know how Mike Gene would respond to your questions.
I should have asked Mike's permission to do this, but I didn't. You see, you don't respect him and I suspect the feeling is mutual. As for what Mike would tell you to do with your bridge, I will leave that up to your imagination. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:24:06, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Richardthughes, Out of curiosity, what answers did you expect to your questions? Did you have your instant response already queued up? BTW, in the introduction of his book Mike Gene made it clear he considers ID to be neither science nor something that should be taught in public schools. He caught quite a bit of heat over that at UD. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:34:27, Link 71.31.146.116 | ||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||
|
Hi Richardthughes, You wrote...
Mike's answers were honest. Thank you for at least a little recognition of the earnest attempt. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:38:53, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
To Doc Bill, Frankly, I don't care what you expect. And while I don't expect you will do so, I suggest you take your own advice about expending energy towards maturation. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:41:08, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Richardthughes, Those were Mike's words. I copied them without his permission. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:57:59, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Richardthughes, First of all, I wouldn't have copied it if I thought the quote would hurt Mike. Either you or I do not understand the situation. Mike Gene and Telic Thoughts are fairly independent of the Discovery Institute and Dembski. While they are not enemies, I have reason to believe Mike's tolerance for giving voice to critics of the ID movement (e.g. Zachriel, Raevmo and myself) hasn't gone over very well. And Mike's book received a very cold reception at Uncommon Descent. This was more than simple competition. If you think evidence of Mike's independence and honesty is damaging to him... ..like I said, either you are or I am misunderstanding the situation. |
| Date: 2008/01/21 11:16:40, Link 64.240.85.9 | ||||
| Author: Thought Provoker | ||||
|
Hi Richardthughes, So what was the purpose of you asking questions concerned the finer points of something you consider equivalent to "javelin catching"? You didn't ask just once, but twice. Was it just so you could mock? Of course it was. How you choose to respond to those with opposing view points influences the perceptions of their followers. It is of little wonder as to why people like Dembski and Wells are able to sustain the ID Movement. There is no benefit in making honest attempts. In fact, it is detrimental to their cause. All they need is to show is that the only choices are to reject your science or reject their God. And they don't have to work very hard, since your actions make it all too obvious this is the case.
Around 400 AD, there was a movement lead by people like Cyril and Augustine. The scientists of the day included people like Hypatia of Alexandria who taught...
For those not familiar with the history, Hypatia and other scientists from the Library of Alexandria were labeled pagans and/or heretics and killed. Cyril and Augustine were sainted by the victors. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. I would rather not have my children and their children suffer through another Dark Age. Paying off our national debt should be punishment enough. |
| Date: 2008/01/21 13:16:18, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
| Did that make you feel better? |
| Date: 2008/01/21 14:02:36, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Doc Bill, So did it help your self-esteem and maturation to correct me? Personally, I think of people who deal with applied mathematics and astronomy as being more than just a scholar. But I have never been big on worrying about correct terms. Are her ideas or my point any less valid because you think her appropriate label is "scholar" instead of "scientist"? However, if your intent was simply to engage in an ad hominem logical fallacy, you succeeded. Which is pretty funny (the "ha ha" kind) considering I am an anonymous non-person. Meanwhile… Which version of reality do you think you live in? Do you embrace the Many Worlds quantum interpretation? Or do you think quantum physics exists in a totally separate realm that you can safely ignore when engaged in what you think of as real science? |
| Date: 2008/01/21 14:51:32, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi oldmanintheskydidntdoit, I am surprised that it there would be confusion over whether or not I support either Dembski or Wells. I do not support them. I think they are potentially dangerous. The potential goes up the more you force an either/or choice. As for concern over international conferences, I am more concerned over international conflicts when a country will support an obviously incompetent leader just because he (or she) has the "right" beliefs. Bush claims to have used God's guidance in executing the war in Iraq. What if the next nut uses God's guidance in deciding what to do with our nuclear missiles? |
| Date: 2008/01/21 18:10:54, Link 64.240.85.9 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
First of all, I am not Mike Gene. Of course you have no way of really knowing that. Any more than I could really know if trilobyte is actually Dembski dissing Mike and his book. I guess you will have to make a subjective judgment based on the logic and consistency in my presentations both here and on Telic Thoughts. It doesn't matter. Most of you guys are going to believe what you want to believe regardless. However, I have noticed a few of you have found some of my blatherings interesting enough to explore. It is equally interesting how few of you are independent enough to march to your own beat in the face of the Group Think that holds court here. For example, how many of you really do think I am Mike Gene now that it is becoming a group decision to think so? And if you don't agree, why would you be afraid to say so? Something to think about. |
| Date: 2008/01/21 23:52:35, Link 71.31.146.116 |
| Author: Thought Provoker |
|
Hi Richardthughes, You asked me about "Bible code" and mentioned intellectual lightweights. Something called "Bible code" wouldn't interest me. I probably wouldn't have had any interest in Mike Gene's book either had I not been posting at Telic Thoughts. Personally, the type of book that interests me and one I think other people should try to read is Penrose's book... The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe It is over a thousand pages the takes you step by step through the math needed to understand our universe. It isn't for "intellectual lightweights". By the time you are done, you actually understand the significance of General Relativity and space-time. A lot of people think of the Special Relativity answer to the Twins Paradox when they hear "relativity" or "space-time". That version is so incomplete that I consider it wrong. Did you know our GPS satellites automatically adjust for General Relativity? If they adjusted for Special Relativity they wouldn't keep time accurately. Special Relativity was a stop gap calculation that was known to be wrong by Einstein when he proposed it. I think the main reason for the prevalence of this incomplete/incorrect concept is that it is easier to explain and understand. The complex, non-Euclidean geometry of Minkowskian space-time isn’t something you try to introduce in a high school physics class (Minkowski was an Einstein contempory, actually one of his teachers). The point of this wandering comment is that it is difficult for me to sympathize with your complaints about books that target “intellectual lightweights” when I see everyone picking and choosing where to focus their energies. Are you in the position to discuss the finer points of General Relativity? For example, could you explain the geometry behind the Twins (or Clock) Paradox? (hint; the traveling twin takes a short cut). I think Mike Gene’s book has the |