kennyc wrote:BULLSHIT ALERT!!! THERE YOU GO AGAIN HACK!

What bullshit? The question hasn't been fucking answered, and your ignorance on both QM and consciousness is STILL NOT FUCKING CUTTING IT!

Not as far as I'm concerned. As has been discussed here and in the research journals and books by the scientists doing the work there is no need to assume there is anything going on but normal macro interactions of chemistry and electricity.

No need to assume =/= nothing there.

WANT TO CLAIM GHOSTS EXIST BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, GO RIGHT AHEAD!

I've done nothing of the sort, and this is precisely the same flavour of misrepresentation that Dave has been getting his arse handed to him for.

Of course, if you had the first idea of what you were banging on about, you might have something other than rectally extracted blind assertions to offer.

Cody wrote:
I understand that no one may wish to improve my knowledge

You should not be thinking like that on a rational forum that exists to promote scientific understanding
For anyone here who has the required knowledge shall only be too happy to help anyone who asks and
there are some serious intellects here so never be afraid to enquire else how are you to learn anything
Someone may ask you your opinion of something in your area of expertise and no doubt you would oblige

I am not an expert on anything myself but I can however recommend some books for you
These are not specific to what you are asking but are physics ones written for the layman

Stephen Hawking : His Life And Work : Kitty Ferguson
Why Does E Equal Mc Squared : Brian Cox / Jeff Forshaw
About Time : Einsteins Unfinished Revolution : Paul Davies
Physics In Minutes : 200 Key Concepts Explained In An Instant : Giles Sparrow
The Mind Of God : Science And the Search For Ultimate Meaning : Paul Davies

Also any physics documentaries on BBC 4 with Jim Al Khalili

Also this site for general physics knowledge :

http://hyperphysics-phy-astr-gsu-edu/hbase/hframe-html

Members with knowledge :

Philosophy : Teuton
Physics : hackenslash
General Science : Cali
Maths : Thommo / Vaz

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:There is a difference between a brain and a brain cell, pl0bs, and between a brain and other organs. Only the brain has a complex network of electrochemical signallers (neurons), some of which are in loop circuits that allow them to briefly hold information electrochemically (conscious awareness), and store that in memory (unconscious). Individual brain cells do not have these functions, but enable brain circuits to carry them out. AFAIK, there is no analogy elsewhere in biology to these brain circuits.

My bs-detector always lights up when ppl start talking about feedback loops. Its a telltale sign that one is using the complexity of the brain as a scapegoat to hide metaphysical assumptions under. But complexity does not offer a safe haven for conjectures about intelligence/consciousness, because any complex system in any organism always stems from a simpler system in its ancestor. Try and focus on the very "first" instances of "networks" and "loops" on the evolutionary timeline and you will find that the fence around the safe haven has collapsed and now spans across many more species than just ones with brains.

OK, I meant neuronal feedback loops, OK?

The electrochemical reactions in the brain are physical, as are the "networks" and "circuits".

Indeed, they are. That was my point, because they are a physical aspect of brains.

So, as before, the mere fact that something is physical does not imply there is no intelligence/consciousness. ...

See above. You seem to be assuming that any old physical aspect can give intelligence. On the contrary, I insist that it has to be sufficiently complex neuronal circuitry - the biological equivalent of AI circuits.

What do you think is the simplest organism that displays intelligent behaviour?

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:There is a difference between a brain and a brain cell, pl0bs, and between a brain and other organs. Only the brain has a complex network of electrochemical signallers (neurons), some of which are in loop circuits that allow them to briefly hold information electrochemically (conscious awareness), and store that in memory (unconscious). Individual brain cells do not have these functions, but enable brain circuits to carry them out. AFAIK, there is no analogy elsewhere in biology to these brain circuits.

My bs-detector always lights up when ppl start talking about feedback loops. Its a telltale sign that one is using the complexity of the brain as a scapegoat to hide metaphysical assumptions under. But complexity does not offer a safe haven for conjectures about intelligence/consciousness, because any complex system in any organism always stems from a simpler system in its ancestor. Try and focus on the very "first" instances of "networks" and "loops" on the evolutionary timeline and you will find that the fence around the safe haven has collapsed and now spans across many more species than just ones with brains.

OK, I meant neuronal feedback loops, OK?

The electrochemical reactions in the brain are physical, as are the "networks" and "circuits".

Indeed, they are. That was my point, because they are a physical aspect of brains.

So, as before, the mere fact that something is physical does not imply there is no intelligence/consciousness. ...

See above. You seem to be assuming that any old physical aspect can give intelligence. On the contrary, I insist that it has to be sufficiently complex neuronal circuitry - the biological equivalent of AI circuits.

What do you think is the simplest organism that displays intelligent behaviour?

Maybe a virus.....depending on whether you consider it an organism or not.
Maybe an enzyme....maybe....

That's a bit of a misleading question, not least because there are organisms that are anything but simple that don't display intelligent behaviour. Some of them even visit internet fora...

hackenslash wrote:

kennyc wrote:Uhhh. No. Entanglement and quantum have nothing to do with the macro phenomenon of consciousness.

AWUGA! AWUGA! UNSUPPORTABLE ASSERTION ALERT!

This is an open question, so any conclusions are premature.

I agree, the claim that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum effects is as bad as the claim that QM proves there is a universal consciousness.

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:There is a difference between a brain and a brain cell, pl0bs, and between a brain and other organs. Only the brain has a complex network of electrochemical signallers (neurons), some of which are in loop circuits that allow them to briefly hold information electrochemically (conscious awareness), and store that in memory (unconscious). Individual brain cells do not have these functions, but enable brain circuits to carry them out. AFAIK, there is no analogy elsewhere in biology to these brain circuits.

My bs-detector always lights up when ppl start talking about feedback loops. Its a telltale sign that one is using the complexity of the brain as a scapegoat to hide metaphysical assumptions under. But complexity does not offer a safe haven for conjectures about intelligence/consciousness, because any complex system in any organism always stems from a simpler system in its ancestor. Try and focus on the very "first" instances of "networks" and "loops" on the evolutionary timeline and you will find that the fence around the safe haven has collapsed and now spans across many more species than just ones with brains.

OK, I meant neuronal feedback loops, OK?

The electrochemical reactions in the brain are physical, as are the "networks" and "circuits".

Indeed, they are. That was my point, because they are a physical aspect of brains.

So, as before, the mere fact that something is physical does not imply there is no intelligence/consciousness. ...

See above. You seem to be assuming that any old physical aspect can give intelligence. On the contrary, I insist that it has to be sufficiently complex neuronal circuitry - the biological equivalent of AI circuits.

What do you think is the simplest organism that displays intelligent behaviour?

The term "intelligent behaviour" is problematic. You clearly regard the white blood cell as showing "intelligent behaviour", as it chases an invading microbe. However, such behaviour is only mimicking inteligence, IMO, because no thought goes into it - the white blood cell does not think about the problem before or during the chase.