If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
As per my understanding, the following diagram from the link in post no. 12 represents twisting of what physics really says:
1. 'Particles' do not occur because of observations. It is only their position which is uncertain till observation is made.
2. 'Material' world is not derived from consciousness. While consciousness occurs because of events in the 'material' world, our consciousness distorts what the 'material' world really is; while there is only energy in the universe, that energy appears as 'particles' in our consciousness.
3. Even though in theory, an individual's consciousness may get duplicated independent of the brain, as in the entangled state, it is initiallycreated as a result of interaction between the 'material' world and the brain.
4. Consciousness getting attached to a 'new' brain would represent a gross mismatch, which could not work, as per current knowledge of neuroscience.
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 28th May, 2023, 07:51 AM.
Dr. Roger Penrose, an acclaimed physicist, and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and psychologist, have proposed a theory known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR). In this theory, they propose that consciousness arises from quantum computations occurring within the brain's neurons, specifically in structures called microtubules.
Microtubules are protein structures that are part of the cell's cytoskeleton. Penrose and Hameroff suggest that these microtubules are capable of quantum computations. When these computations reach a certain level, they collapse, or reduce, and this reduction is what we experience as consciousness.
Importantly, the theory suggests that these quantum computations are not just random events, but are "orchestrated" by the biological processes of the brain (hence the name "Orchestrated Objective Reduction").
Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory
The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically 'orchestrated' coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi-Penrose (DP) scheme of 'objective reduction' ('OR') of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity ('Orch OR') is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space-time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of 'beat frequencies' of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic ('EEG') correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.
Thank you, Sid. Whether particular consciousness is an inherent property of particular shapes of brain's electronic waves or particular combinations of Orch OR, is a minor point. I just find the former simpler to understand (and hence more elegant) than the latter, and the vast majority of quantum physicists say that Orch OR just cannot occur at brain temperatures...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 28th May, 2023, 07:59 AM.
Thank you, Sid. Whether particular consciousness is an inherent property of particular shapes of brain's electronic waves or particular combinations of Orch OR, is a minor point. I just find the former simpler to understand (and hence more elegant) than the latter, and the vast majority of quantum physicists say that Orch OR just cannot occur at brain temperatures...
Penrose and Hameroff have responded to this criticism in a few ways:
Microtubules and quantum protection: Hameroff suggests that the structure of microtubules might protect quantum states. He points to the non-polar, aromatic amino acids in the tubulin protein that makes up microtubules, suggesting these could form "quantum channels" that could resist environmental decoherence.
Quantum coherence in biological systems: They point to evidence of quantum coherence in other biological systems. For example, certain photosynthetic bacteria are known to use quantum coherence to increase the efficiency of energy transfer. While these are not identical to the conditions within brain cells, these findings suggest that biology might have found ways to exploit quantum effects despite the issues with decoherence.
Orch OR and moments of consciousness: In Orch-OR theory, moments of conscious awareness are proposed to correspond to instances of quantum state reduction (or "objective reduction", OR, as Penrose refers to it). Hameroff suggests that these OR events might be relatively frequent, possibly occurring hundreds of times per second. If this is the case, then the quantum states in microtubules wouldn't need to be maintained for very long periods to have an effect on consciousness.
Penrose and Hameroff have responded to this criticism in a few ways:
Microtubules and quantum protection: Hameroff suggests that the structure of microtubules might protect quantum states. He points to the non-polar, aromatic amino acids in the tubulin protein that makes up microtubules, suggesting these could form "quantum channels" that could resist environmental decoherence.
Quantum coherence in biological systems: They point to evidence of quantum coherence in other biological systems. For example, certain photosynthetic bacteria are known to use quantum coherence to increase the efficiency of energy transfer. While these are not identical to the conditions within brain cells, these findings suggest that biology might have found ways to exploit quantum effects despite the issues with decoherence.
Orch OR and moments of consciousness: In Orch-OR theory, moments of conscious awareness are proposed to correspond to instances of quantum state reduction (or "objective reduction", OR, as Penrose refers to it). Hameroff suggests that these OR events might be relatively frequent, possibly occurring hundreds of times per second. If this is the case, then the quantum states in microtubules wouldn't need to be maintained for very long periods to have an effect on consciousness.
Unlike the Orch OR theory, the EM wave shape theory gives rise to the possibility of life after death and more! Most of us wish to experience all-encompassing bliss at least after death, don't we? Some say that true bliss can also be experienced during meditation by suppression of most negativity creating brain activity, as is supposed to be happening also during orgasm (female orgasm is especially associated with calming down of 'other' brain activity...)
As per my understanding, the following diagram from the link in post no. 12 represents twisting of what physics really says:
1. 'Particles' do not occur because of observations. It is only their position which is uncertain till observation is made.
2. 'Material' world is not derived from consciousness. While consciousness occurs because of events in the 'material' world, our consciousness distorts what the 'material' world really is; while there is only energy in the universe, that energy appears as 'particles' in our consciousness.
3. Even though in theory, an individual's consciousness may get duplicated independent of the brain, as in the entangled state, it is initiallycreated as a result of interaction between the 'material' world and the brain.
4. Consciousness getting attached to a 'new' brain would represent a gross mismatch, which could not work, as per current knowledge of neuroscience.
Your Statements 1 and 2 involve the Copehhegan interpretation of Quantum physics. At the same time, Debroglie's argument posits that particles' position and momentum can be described definitively via the pilot wave theory. However, both theories agree that the Schroedinger Wave function equation correctly describes the probability of the position and momentum of a particle.
Regarding statement 3 Quantum entanglement indeed led Dr. Bell to conclude that both models of Quantum are incomplete as they both imply that the theories violate Einsteins' special theory of relativity. Dr. Bell was hoping that Quantum entanglement could be explained by similar pre-programmed behaviors within a photon split in two giving rise to two entangled photon with "hidden variables" within the photons explaining similar behaviors at a distance. To Dr. Bells chagrin when he carried out experiments of entangled particles at a distance the randomess of events made it statistically impossible to explain this phenomenon by local hidden variables.
So yes, I agree that if assuming Quantum consciousness is correct, then indeed entanglement via the same way a photon divides into two entangled particles makes sense.
Dr. Tucker's theories are fascinating, and probably the most compelling evidence he ever came across was the case of James Leninger
James Leininger, from a young age, had detailed and consistent memories of being a World War II pilot who was shot down over Iwo Jima. He could name the aircraft carrier he took off from (the "Natoma") and his "previous" first and last name. When his parents researched these claims, they found out that there indeed was an aircraft carrier named the "USS Natoma Bay" involved in the Iwo Jima operation, and that a pilot named James Huston was killed there.
James also had nightmares of being shot down by the Japanese, knew details about WWII aircraft that were surprising for a child of his age, and was able to identify a fellow pilot from a group photo of people who served on the Natoma Bay, among other things.
Dr. Tucker's work is considered meticulous and serious.
Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani
Unlike the Orch OR theory, the EM wave shape theory gives rise to the possibility of life after death and more! Most of us wish to experience all-encompassing bliss at least after death, don't we? Some say that true bliss can also be experienced during meditation by suppression of most negativity creating brain activity, as is supposed to be also happening during orgasm (female orgasm is especially associated with calming down of 'other' brain activity...)
Orch-Or theory and EM Theory are not mutually exclusive, and indeed, the conclusion arising out of Orch-Or theory is that Quantum actions occur independently of the microtubules and therefore support the idea of Universal consciousness as per Dr. Penrose.
The apparent universality of certain patterns in nature can indeed be seen as a sign of underlying rules or principles. The laws of physics, for example, apply consistently across the universe as far as we can tell, and they dictate the behavior of everything from galaxies to atoms. This would be indicative of Universal consciousness as the explanation of things occurring at random is statistically a zero probability.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 28th May, 2023, 06:37 PM.
'Material' world is not derived from consciousness. While consciousness occurs because of events in the 'material' world, our consciousness distorts what the 'material' world really is; while there is only energy in the universe, that energy appears as 'particles' in our consciousness.
Have you heard the following question:
If a tree fell in a remote forest and there was no bird/animal nearby, was there sound created?
The correct answer is 'No', because sound is a property of consciousness...it does not exist in the material world...
The answer to the question depends heavily on how you define "sound." In physics, sound is typically defined as a wave of pressure variation that travels through a medium (like air or water). By this definition, the falling tree certainly does make a sound, regardless of whether any conscious being is around to perceive it.
However, if you define "sound" as a perceptual phenomenon -- something that occurs in the mind of a listener when these waves stimulate their auditory system -- then you could argue that no sound occurs if there's no listener.
So, the statement that "sound is a property of consciousness" aligns with this latter definition. Yet, it's worth noting that this is not the only possible definition, and it's not the one that's commonly used in physics. This illustrates how different disciplines can use the same word ("sound") to mean slightly different things.
Moreover, it's important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about perception and consciousness, and empirical questions about the physics of sound. The tree-falling question is a useful tool for exploring philosophical ideas, but it doesn't invalidate or challenge the physics of sound.
The answer to the question depends heavily on how you define "sound." In physics, sound is typically defined as a wave of pressure variation that travels through a medium (like air or water). By this definition, the falling tree certainly does make a sound, regardless of whether any conscious being is around to perceive it.
However, if you define "sound" as a perceptual phenomenon -- something that occurs in the mind of a listener when these waves stimulate their auditory system -- then you could argue that no sound occurs if there's no listener.
So, the statement that "sound is a property of consciousness" aligns with this latter definition. Yet, it's worth noting that this is not the only possible definition, and it's not the one that's commonly used in physics. This illustrates how different disciplines can use the same word ("sound") to mean slightly different things.
Moreover, it's important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about perception and consciousness, and empirical questions about the physics of sound. The tree-falling question is a useful tool for exploring philosophical ideas, but it doesn't invalidate or challenge the physics of sound.
The answer to the question depends heavily on how you define "sound." In physics, sound is typically defined as a wave of pressure variation that travels through a medium (like air or water). By this definition, the falling tree certainly does make a sound, regardless of whether any conscious being is around to perceive it.
However, if you define "sound" as a perceptual phenomenon -- something that occurs in the mind of a listener when these waves stimulate their auditory system -- then you could argue that no sound occurs if there's no listener.
So, the statement that "sound is a property of consciousness" aligns with this latter definition. Yet, it's worth noting that this is not the only possible definition, and it's not the one that's commonly used in physics. This illustrates how different disciplines can use the same word ("sound") to mean slightly different things.
Moreover, it's important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about perception and consciousness, and empirical questions about the physics of sound. The tree-falling question is a useful tool for exploring philosophical ideas, but it doesn't invalidate or challenge the physics of sound.
In the scenario of a tree falling in the forest and no bird or animal nearby to hear it, it could be imagined that a non-conscious technical device (a microphone connected to a transmitter, powered by batteries) could pick up the sound and transmit it thousands of miles away to an observer.
I'm sure this must have been done in today's technical world, and I'm just as sure the sound was observed from a great distance.
Therefore as you say Sid, the physics of sound .... is sound (sorry for the pun!)
The distinction can be made between a "sound" versus a "heard sound".
There's also the question of whether plants (trees, grass, weeds) can hear sound. Is there any proof they do not? I have no idea on that.
The question about sounds and forests came up in the first philosophy course I took. Most students said yes there is still a sound, a few said no. Then I said if there is no one there to hear it then there is no forest in the first place.
Sid, I like your explanation. Though being a committed proponent of Berkeley I do not myself believe in the existence of matter, my view is that only minds and their contents, sounds for example, exist. To me matter is simply what minds imagine, I do not believe that interactions within matter/energy produce consciousness. It seems to me that Nature thinks the universe, and we reside in the mind of Nature.
The physics of sound causes real sound in consciousness, but the two are not the same at all, just like the physics of sight and sight itself are not the same...
Technical devices just transmit the physics of sound, not real sound, just like video recordings transmit the physical basis of sight, not sight itself.
It seems to me that Nature thinks the universe, and we reside in the mind of Nature.
Hey Bob A., What Brad says should relieve your anxiety: Climate change is a thought of Nature, and humans, just another thought, cannot change that thought...
(just kidding, but nevertheless, your anxiety is not justified...)
The physics of sound causes real sound in consciousness, but the two are not the same at all, just like the physics of sight and sight itself are not the same...
Technical devices just transmit the physics of sound, not real sound, just like video recordings transmit the physical basis of sight, not sight itself.
Again, the distinctions between "physics of sound" and "sound in consciousness" can be articulated: "sound" and "heard sound".
Similarly with light: there is "light" and there is "seen light".
Perhaps to make the articulation even simpler, do away with the terms "heard" and "seen" and simply put "perceived". Perceiving can only be done by some form of consciousness. Perceiving implies awareness. Therefore the microphone in the forest is not "perceiving" sound, nor is a camera "perceiving" light.
EDIT: but in the not too distant future, an AI drone in the forest may (if all the hype is correct) perceive both sound and light. But what about a non-AI drone of today? Such a drone of today may be programmed to do something if it "sees" or "hears" something. The seeing or hearing is only on the basis of the physics of sound, but nevertheless the drone takes action based on programming logic. So maybe perceiving soune or light isn't limited to concious entities, but can be extended to programmed entities that take action based on such perceiving.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Monday, 29th May, 2023, 04:29 PM.
No. Other than one leading to the other by interacting with the brain, there is no similarity whatsoever between the physical nature of what produces a sound or sight and the sound or sight itself. One just needs to calmly think about the details of it to realize this fact.
Having said that, what is very very difficult to believe, but nevertheless true as per modern physics, is that the stuff that we see and feel (through intermediary physical processes of transmission of information, and the latter are easily obvious as being different) is very very different from what our consciousness tells us it is!! We seem to see and feel particles, but in reality, particles do not exist... what exists outside our consciousness is just energy...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Monday, 29th May, 2023, 06:04 PM.
Tweet
Comment