Jodie: it's the math.
Everyone: what math, exactly?
Jodie: it's the general picture.
Everyone: which is general bull.
Jodie: but it's the math!
Accurate, but I remain undecided whether it is intentional or not on Jodie's part. I lean toward thinking that she did not realize the muddled nature of her thinking until it was pointed out here, and now she is having difficulty accepting it.
Natheless, I debated whether to post this. Jodie accused me of not reading her links, and I did not respond. I have read most of her links. I even watched the rather silly Rob Bryanton "5th Dimension" youtube video. I admit I did not watch the hour-plus video she linked in the same post. As I read those, I wrote comments intending to post them should it become apparent it might help, but then I never posted my comments.
Here they are now, belatedly:
===
From
post 486
Article on summary of Song
Newspaper account, not the actual paper, but okay; like you, I am probably incapable of following the actual math. Let’s take Song at his word as quoted in the article. He says
“…the brain does not produce consciousness,” but the start of that sentence is
“The brain and consciousness are linked together.” (Italics and bolding are mine)
There is nothing in there to indicate a consciousness separate from brain that can then (a) invade the dreams of another consciousness and (b) make accurate prophecies.
But let’s go one step further and in that way indicate – yet again – how you (a) waffle between positions and (b) do not understand the ideas you tout nearly so well as you think you do.
Compare Song’s very direct claim that computers will never be able to model consciousness with the second link about Koch in post 460 below; the two are in direct opposition.
===
From
post 460
Article on Scale Symmetry
Please enlighten me on this. I fail to see any math that supports the idea of a consciousness-separate-from-brain capable of invading the dreams of another consciousness and thereby conveying an accurate prophecy. Other than that the idea of scale symmetry indicates the presence of particles which have been whimsically labeled “ghosts,” I see no tie in. I trust you can show me the math, though.
Article on Christof Koch
(Synchronistic aside: This is the second thread in a few months in which I have been presented with information by Koch; I had not heard of him prior to the other thread. Just as in that thread, the one presenting Koch in this thread is not demonstrating an understanding of what Koch says. Not that I really grasp it; Koch is obviously leagues beyond me, but I can tell when laymen misuse his ideas)
But I’ll summarize here what I discussed in that earlier thread: Koch does not view consciousness as something separate from brain. He very clearly views it as an emergent property of systems. His unique take is simply that it is an emergent property of far more systems than generally acknowledged. There is, of course, more to it than that, but any attempt to read Koch as saying consciousness is separate from brain is doomed to fail. The failure is not averted by your word salad regarding “brain functions as a lens” in your
post 439.
===
From
post 344
Article on Tegmark and perceptronium
Within the rather poor limitations of my ability to follow physics at all, I am somewhat of a Tegmark fan. I am not, however, a fan of those laymen who misrepresent him. Usually I think it is attributable to the limits of language. Distilling the highly esoteric language of advanced quantum wibbly wobbly stuff into terms that can not only be understood by laymen while limiting the misapplication of those terms is a risky business. That is what is happening here.
Tegmark, like Koch, does not posit consciousness as something separate from matter, and his perceptronium is not an actual, physical liquid lurking in the dark recesses of your brain, magically giving awareness to your soul. Tegmark is in one sense unchaining the idea of consciousness, but in a larger sense – and this is the important sense that is missed here – he is constraining it. He is saying that if we analyze consciousness in the same manner in which we analyze matter, we can make it mathematically explicable. This is important, so I’ll say it another way: According to Tegmark, consciousness is not a free floating thing wafting between dimensions; rather, it can be explained just like physical matter.
===
From
post 340
Robert Lanza Editorial
Seriously? You turn to a medical doctor’s opinion piece without a single bit of research or math as an authority? Lanza is tremendously respectable, but his qualifications in this field are no greater than mine, and the article you link is full of word salad amounting to
“Physics doesn’t allow for the soul, and I want it to, plus Observer Effect therefore soul.” I’m not being flippant; that is the sum and substance of this article, with one misleading exception. Lanza mentions the 2011 experiment
“Quantum Interference of Large Organic Molecules,” yet he says nothing about how this leads to a conclusion of either (a) soul or (b) consciousness separate from brain. The reason he says nothing about it is because it does not lead to that. The experiment was extremely cool and surprising, but what it did was push the boundary between quantum and classical physics; it did not open the door to “Hah! Quantum means soul!”
Durr Obituary
I completely fail to see what in this link provides support for your claims. (There are at least three, each of which would require separate support as proving one would not prove the others: (1) consciousness is separate from brain (2) consciousness of a deceased person can invade the dreams of a living person (3) said consciousness of deceased person can make accurate prophecies). In fact, this link completely contradicts you. Read the ending quotation:
“When I die, I have no more consciousness, but all that I have thought has been added to the background. As information it has mixed with the world mind, has influenced the whole and become part of it.” If you think that supports your claims, then I respectfully suggest you need to read it more carefully.
