Finally getting to dive into those topics I've longed to examine up close.
Quantum mechanics is one & my mind is in a painful twist over it.
May I ask you QM experts - @gmusser maybe? - to tell me if this article is wildly brilliant or dead on arrival?https://bit.ly/2wCk7yO
-
-
Replying to @carolynporco @gmusser
I’m a layperson but am finishing my second
@seanmcarroll book about things like this. It’s a fascinating subject and I am enjoying learning about it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ah, I didn't think about
@seanmcarroll or@bgreene ... both of whom I know and could have asked. Well, now they know I'm on a quest for an answer ...1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @carolynporco @mikeflstfi and
Well, you know, people disagree. I, for example, disagree with the viewpoint in this article. I did just write a book about it if you want more!
4 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
For my part, my next book will, among much else, discuss whether quantum physics has some role to play in the mind. I'm more sympathetic to that idea than I used to be, but all such theories take a philosophical leap. They are variants of what philosophers call identity theories.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gmusser @seanmcarroll and
Very curious as to why you are more sympathetic than before to this idea. As far as I understand, there is no evidence from neuroscience for this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I think theories of consciousness are at a very early stage. All are probably wrong. We need to look at what each does well, rather than dwell on failings, and build on that. Penrose and Hameroff draw attention to intracellular structures and deviations from Hodgkin-Huxley. (2/2)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gmusser @MelMitchell1 and
I don’t see how QM makes consciousness easier to explain. Making computation nonlocal or faster still only gives you computation. It’s just implementation details. Looking at implementation intracellular structures and also the extended mind may explain capabilities though.
4 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
I am still fascinated that Turing (1950) discusses telepathy as possibly real. If it is, it would require changes to foundational physics (superdeterminism is probably not enough), but not to computationalism. Transistor based computers can be conscious but not telepathic.
3 replies 3 retweets 15 likes -
Is there a leading historical theory on why he discussed it in the article? I remember reading it - in my memory he just dropped it outta nowhere at some point. Leaving me amused but clueless.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In Turing's time, telepathy was not yet seen as totally outlandish, and most people outside of science will still tell you that telepathy is unreliable but real. I have a strong prior against telepathy, but only because it is very hard to make it compatible with known physics.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.