Physics, Consciousness & summary

change of direction. News this week that Oxford studies show that "parallel worlds" significantly solves a number of quantum problems.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/parallel+universes+exist++study/838052

So i'm off looking at this side of the equation. Consider though that Dennett has shown that Consciousness does not give either a spatially or temporarily coherent picture of brain processing. There is no direct match, rather that space and time seem to be constructs within a Turing machine modelled within the brain. A level of removal. So anyone looking for direct relationship leaves a lot of evidence out.

A learned friend (i.e. i wouldn't dismiss his ideas, and I don't fully understand them) believes (I think) that human choice can determine quantum states, so that we effectively chose which parallel universe we occupy. However (and I will find the experiments) this does not account for the fact that quatum states can be shown to be short lived even without human interference. i.e. it doesn't have to be a human instrument that checks on Shroedingers cat. Now u could argue that the whole system remains in quantum uncertainty until any human observation is made... and i don't know the difference but that is to be rechecked.

In the background I have my own take on this all which is that Mind is prior to all investigation, so putting the cart before the horse will create all kinds of problems. I also challenge the assumption that Mind is a product of Brain. Expect: Mind escapes any attempt at its classification, explanation, or replacement in any way by "thought" which is a product of Brain. I'm feeding in my understanding of Buddhist insights into Mind's unlimited nature. The true reality "just is" and from that comes everything else. Afterall if it "just wasn't" what are we investigating?

p.s. the maths stuff, and computing stuff, is leading - I see - toward an understanding of non-computable which is what I will be scratching around with for a while. Damn i've wasted time. But the naive work i did in 1996 at least put me in the opinion that machines that work on their own data set, recursively, churn out non-sense. That links meaningful work to the environment and intelligence can't be an inner product. Consciousness as we know is outside the brain for how else can we see things? hehe. OK Todo: fully understand proofs of non-computable so I can see if i can either find the right one or construct it. Keep up the effort to show that all textual/symbol work must be done in conjunction with a historical Brain (these marks on the page while having low entropy) are meaningless without a trained human to read them, and that this Brain can't be a "finite state machine" whose output could be totally put to paper. That is what I am doing, but I'm not dumping my training cos u can't learn to read by reading!

Check these names: Hameroff, Penrose in connection with work after 1992 on microtubules and consciousness. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n6_v15/ai_15447461/pg_1

btw in the smart language I'm learning i can frame the arguments thus: Thought is non-computable because there are issues with recursiveness. It would be like trying to think a thought. Consciousness even more so. And Mind is beyond all frames of reference. Investigate...

p.p.s. the issue of compression shows up too... because finding patterns in data is kike finding meaning too! and if there was a general algorythm then there would be a fixed way of getting meaning and then a machine could replace the human brain... a multiplicity of algorithms is the point and the mysterious (karmic) glue which determines which ones we use at any given time!