Hello Jonathan, Magnus,
Patrick wrote the last time (in a bit irritating tone of voice I see
now, sorry):
> > But okay, here's Hodgson's argument in a slightly different form:
> Could
> > you imagine just one 'grandmother'-neuron representing this picture
> of
> > these instantaneous events? I think not. So there must be different
> > neurons in the brain responsible for representing the picture of the
> > *instantaneous* events in your mind: We can at one moment be aware
> of
> > multiple things, and different *spatially seperated* neuronal events
> > (whatever those may be) must be responsible for that, as I just
> argued.
> > So to make our one visual eye and one mind, you need the same
> so-called
> > mysterious *instantaneous* correlations as with the *spatially
> > seperated* photons. The mind entails nonlocality.
> > Okay, please let me know if *anyone* gets this point. I would surely
> > appreciate it if I've been able to put across Hodgson's argument. It
> > can't be so hard, can it? I don't understand why some people are
> having
> > such difficulties to understand this. >>>
> >
Jonathan replied:
> > I think I do understand the argument, but note that you start from
> the
> > unstated assumption that there is something absolute and distinct
> about
> > proximity vs. non-locality. The implication is that this is an
> example
> > of a "division that's already there" (to quote Magnus - see above).
> > I state that the very concept of non-locality comes from a
> particular
> > way of looking at the world.
Magnus replied:
>
> Right! The MoQ with a quantum level has no problem with this. Space,
> i.e.
> locality, only exist in the inorganic level and up. Below, in the
> quantum
> level, there's neither space nor locality.
>
> Magnus
Patrick again:
First of all, I mused some time on Jonathan's reply that locality and
it's counterpart nonlocality are 'just' concepts. It goes rather deep.
But you must admit that locality (or space) is a very fundamental
concept we use to look at the world, related to the subject ('here') and
object ('there') distinction. That ultimate reality is concept-free
might be right, and I guess you're asking about that.
Two remarks still: Locality and nonlocality might be just concepts, but
they're fundamental concepts in physics. Physics explain things by using
these concepts, and the quantum mind explains consciousness in a way by
using the concept of nonlocality.
The other remark: You have unstated assumptions yourself... You use
reflection upon experience and state that atoms and such are real, and
you build up a vision of reality with emergent levels from it. Only then
you come back to experience, to state that the mind is an emergent
property just like the motions of huge collections of gas molecules: I
agree that diffusion is emergent in the sense that you can't see
diffusion on the one-molecule level. But the mind is not emergent in
this sense, I still hold. It's like explaining the empirical fact that
things get shorter with huge velocities by using concepts like friction
and thereby stating that the getting-shorter of a thing stems from the
burn-up of material at the front. You can do that and it explains the
facts, but after a number of other observations you're starting to get
into trouble. The thing is, you need another concept or element in the
equation ('Lorenz-contraction' I believe) to explain the facts.
But I stray: What I'm trying to make clear is that you're in a
EXPERIENCE-REFLECTION-EXPERIENCE loop to explain things. You start with
experience, than you reflect upon it with concepts, and with those
concepts you try to explain the very same experience you started out
with. Maybe I do the same, but I think I stick closer to our more raw
experience, in which we can perceive things simultaneously. And just
then I see the new Physics and use reflection upon that to say that it's
the concept of nonlocality that applies to the mind. Incidentally,
William James described well the apparent experiental fact that we can
attend to things in our phenomonal field, but that was prior to quantum
physics. He only had a description of experience, but lacked the
'objective' counterpart, which years later was being found by
Schroedinger, Bohr, Heisenberg and all.
Magnus, I believe it was you who recently said that the levels-thing was
not about scales, and now you say that nonlocality only applies (below
or) to the bottom of all levels, at the smallest scale that is. That
seems to me quite a contradiction. IMO, you can use the concept of
locality to explain some levels perhaps as lower on the scale (if you
want, like gas molecules being some scales lower than the diffusing gas)
than other levels, but when you get in the sub-atomic realm the 'smaller
fits in larger' concept looses its meaning. QM shows us the limits of
locality, and shows us just something different (although indeed our
present technology shows us only quantum effects at very small scale.
But what about neutron stars and probably black holes? They can be quite
big and probably harness large-scale quantum effects).
Okay, that's seems about it for now. Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:46 BST