Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[Hegel]

Oh, now you change the terms to mean something else... ok.
You can have the cake...

No I did not. Those problems are fundametnally metaphysical, totally dependent on philosphical notions, not empirical problems... It IS philosophy AND physics. This was clear as crystal for Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. B

Do you mind writing down that equation?
Somehow, I don't think that Shrödinger's equation will have what you think it does... but I need to see it, first.

Is this the fisrt time you hear about it or are you just playing an idiot? It is not this: G(m1m2)/r^2, but it is quite as famous. If you don't know what it is and what's it even about, why do you ask to see it? It makes simply absolutely no sense, because you can't really understand the formula if you have not studied physics. The equation describes how the wave-function evolves. That's enough for our purposes. google it, if you don't believe what I wirte.

You're arguing for a theory that's far... very far... from demonstrated... if it will ever be.

I was not arguing for anyhing except against dogmatism and ignorance. I have explicitly stated that I do not believe that the tehroy is shown to be true. But neither is hard AI or any of its competitor. So, if can't even understand what I mean and don't mean, even if I can hardly have been mopre clear on this ...

And the major piece of evidence the proponents of the theory have to show is the effect of anesthetics on some structures within the neurons.

No, that's not the major evidence. You have not understood the article, nor the theory, as I have already told you.

This is what I mean that correlation does not imply causation: the effect of the anesthetic does not mean that the theory is correct...

Oh shit. I just wasted some lines in pointing out to you that NOBODY is claiming that it is evidence of anything. But you did not understand anything about it. The logic of falsification. You only verify precisly what I said: inductionist fallscy. (And you have no idea what that means)

All I saw was that it impaired movement of tadpoles...
My reading skillz must be a bit off, I am getting a bit old!

Those drugs are commonly used with humans, but it is easier to research them with tadpoles, for obvious ethical reasons.

But before Copernicus, no one falsified it... Concerning Penrose's theory we are in the pre-Copernicus era... We'll see how it develops.

Yes, in terms of consciousness we ARE living pre-copernicanian era!
Now you show show a glimpse of understanding. It's a serious scientific theory, and as it is with science, it always begins with guesses, and some of those guesses turn out to be supported by evidence, where others fail; and the process of getting the "evidence", to corroborate it, ("trying to falsify tht theory"), that can be a long path.

Turing machines are sequential machines, like all computer CPUs up to the 90's. At best, one can claim that current parallel CPUs can do the same as a single CPU, it just takes longer. The brain, it seems, has different areas dedicated to different tasks, meaning that one of those areas could not perform the tasks of the other areas, so it is a parallel machine not reducible to a sequential one.
Thus any analogy between the brain and a Turing machine, like what Penrose is trying to accomplish, is faulty.
The theory fails at the most basic level.... and no one notices, because Penrose has worked with such great minds as Stephen Hawkins... -.-'

First you can't grasp a thing that is obvious (how Gödel's proof is connected with mind) and when I have to explain it to you, you start out being sarcastic. Now, a little intellctual honesty, please.

Anyhow, as I told you, if you read what I write, that I do not find the argument that appealing, and that is for precisely the reasons you give. I am perfectly aware of all that. To put it in mathematical terms, you don't have to assume that brain is sound, or, you can assume that only some module of it is. However, as I also wrote, the Orc OR does not rest logically on that argument. Now, Penrose believes in it (and he has his reasons, you can be sure, that go beyond what you say, for the man is not an idiot), an for that reason and the reason that, if that argument were correct, that would, indeed, be one hell of an evidence for their theory, so that's why they start with it.

Personally, I don't believe in hard or soft AI, that is to say, I find it implausible (for reasons which would take too much time to explain), so I would like to believe in Penrose's argument, but unfortunately it is not a proof, even it is smart. But, as I said, there are other reasons to be skeptical of AI, as it implies dualism (D.Chalmers has shown this) plus some others.

Oh ,[fun time] you should meet the female half of the world's population!

But ...
twisted logic is still logic.

Ah.... ok.... enjoy that. That's not the problem at hand, remember?

Even if human mind is not equal with TM, it certainly can run it. They are connected. If mind is algiorithmic, obviously proofs about limits of algorithmic processing are connceted to it.


But you seem to make an error. I have read from an authorative book (I can't prove it mathematically) that all computations run by network-models can be executed by TM. So, as far as I understand it, you've got it wrong: the question is really not TM vs. some more holistic (or whatever) learning networks, but about soundness. Thus, even if Penrose's argument is not convincing, or at least not as convincing as it might appear, mind MUST be understood, within both hard AND soft AI as analogous to TM.

And some physicists claims that actually TM runs the whole world, but that's another story.

It's starting to feel like I'm arguing with a creationist...

Well, I can only tell that I feel the exactly the same, and guess what, In was going to end this with more or less with those very same words of yours, for I don'trepeat myself more than twice to people who cannot becaue of lack of intelligence or will no because of lack of intellctual honesty understand what Is say; your ignorance and and incapacity to understand what I write and were and were not in fact claiming, is certainly on the level of creatinist --