Fundamental or nearly fundamental energy and the origin of Intelligence?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Dennis Tate, Mar 19, 2021.

?

Would Intelligence begin in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy?

  1. No

    4 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. I would tend to think so at least????

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  1. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154

    Yes...... microtubules would be processing information at fundamental energy levels!

    I love that explanation.

    Yes... Roger Penrose refers to these "microtubules" in this video!



    Roger Penrose - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    For the record, originally I voted "no" on the OP poll, because I assumed the question is based on a sentient intelligence.

    But now that I think about it I have changed my vote on the premise of an inherent form of natural quasi-intelligence which universal mathematical functions provide when processing fundamental values and are usually identified as the universal constants, our mathematical equations symbolizing fundamental universal processes which I consider as a self-referential form of consciousness, the deterministic part of cause and effect. The EM field lies within that concept. It's properties fundamentally are guided by mathematical processes and therefore may qualify as a form of self-referential mathematical quasi-intelligence.

    AFAIK, true conscious intelligence is acquired via fundamental EM processes in the brain.

    I believe that is somewhere in the neighborhood of Penrose's thinking and he has the chops to defend that hypothesis.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    391
    Yes, microtubules was a promising way to explain the consciousness.
    You could also say that ADN could be related to consciousness
    But this has been refuted.

    A better explaination could be found in water.
    Yes, water is surely not what we know it is...
    Look at the Sun, what do you see ?
    Water...
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    The sun is 91% hydrogen and 8.9% helium. No water. Hydrogen isn't wet.

    Water is an emergent property of a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at a certain temperature
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  8. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    391
    71% Hydrogen
    1% Oxygen
    https://www.space.com/17170-what-is-the-sun-made-of.html

    So "technicaly", water.

    Yes, all here depend on temperature.

    You could also say that water is some molecule, H2O here, like other molecure (CH4 etc), but no, not even is this "molecule" like the others.
    In the sun you have a plasma... so technicaly water.

    I remember my teacher (botanic but he was some specialist in water flow in plants) explaining that "technicaly" in the sea, there is only 1 molecule of water.
    So yes, perhaps from some point of view, the Sun doesent contain 1 such molecule and from one other point of view the Sun contain only 1 molecule of water, but in a body, for sure, there is 1 molecule of water in the brain.

    H2O, this tiny theoretical molecule doesent exists when in the liquid state, perhaps in vapor state or solid state, not sure.

    Why do you think water is so important in the baptism ?
    Because it is a special "thing".
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    No, you really cannot. A single molecule of H2O is not wet.
    No H2O is not a theoretical molecule and yes it can exist in three different states. One of them is water which is wet.
    Max Tegmark explains the emergent property of "wetness" in this interesting lecture.

     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  10. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    391
    No problem, there is no H2O molecule in water...

    Water is wet, ok, capilarity etc.
    But H2O molecule (in water) is virtual, or theoritical, like you prefer, water is composed of H30+ and OH- and if you "assemble them virtualy" you could say you have 2 molecules of virtual H2O.

    H3O+ change to OH- and OH- change to H3O+, these molecules are the real molecules in water.
    There is no H2O in water (correction... let be precise, yes there can be also vapor H2O in water, like at his surface if any).
    Therefore, the water is much like a mesh or a network constantly changing and echanging protons.
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    Water
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
     
  12. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    391
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
  14. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    My impression from the off the scale type of energies that would exist in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy it would be almost impossible for some form of
    computer like circuitry to not come into existence???


     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,109
    Dennis Tate:

    I asked you a lot of very specific questions about two of your posts. You have skipped over them - essentially ignored them - and then gone on your merry way almost as if I never posted anything. Why is that? Were my questions too difficult for you to address? Or is it that you'd prefer not to confront those kinds of things? Are you so comfortable in your beliefs about near death experiences and the like that any suggestion that they aren't good evidence for God or the supernatural just goes in one ear and out the other? Or what?

    Should I write you off as a person I should simply ignore, then? Somebody who isn't worth listening to, because you just ramble on regardless of what anybody else says to you?
    Gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces are not "energies" - or at least not in the vague sort of way you seem to be using that term. They are best described as "fundamental interactions" that describe how the fundamental particles in the universe (that we know of) all interact with one another.

    Probably you are thinking of theories that "combine" the four "fundamental interactions" into a single "super force" at very high energies. So I guess there's a hint of actual physics in what you're talking about, but it sounds like you don't understand it very well - or more that you understand it from a sort of "popular science" perspective, which tends to use words to explain things rather than mathematics and quantitative theory.

    Okay. You were doing well right up until you mentioned "evidence in parapsychology or pseudoscience". What does parapsychology have to do with string theory or fundamental forces? And what is the "evidence" you're referring to?

    You know that "pseudoscience" is "fake science" - nonsense dressed up to look like science, essentially? It has the trappings of science without bothering about any actual evidence collection or methodological rigour, or critical thinking - those kinds of things that we find in real science.

    Well, there's a difference between a wild guess and an educated guess. Which is yours?

    Are you educated in the physics necessary to understand string theory properly? Are you able to read Hawking's original scientific papers and understand them? If so, then your "guess" might be worth something. If, on the other hand, you've just read "A brief history of time", without really understanding the last half of the book, and a few other pop-science articles on string theory that contain no mathematics, then your "guess" is unlikely to point us towards fruitful avenues for future research.

    What is a far worse sign is that you appear to be putting as much, or more, emphasis on information you believe you have from pseudoscientific ideas (parapsychology and near death experiences, for instance) as you do on information from real scientific sources, like Hawking. That suggests to me that you're not very good at telling the difference between science and pseudoscience, yet.

    I don't know what you're referring to when you say "energy somehow goes off the scale". Can you refer me to a specific source that makes that claim? That is, a reputable scientific source (even a pop-science one will do), not a crank pseudoscientific source?

    In which experiment(s) did "energy somehow go off the scale"? In what way? With what measurement? The energy of what? I want some details.
    Which facility? What kind of facility?

    Maybe, if it could be harnessed. And so...?

    You think there's a conspiracy to hide important science from the public, concerning limitless sources of energy, or similar? Got evidence of that?
    Can you list a few of the similarities? Maybe five of them, say, for starters? How specific are they?

    Are you claiming that this Mellen Benedict person gained access to special knowledge about physics as a result of a near death experience? Is there any other evidence of that?
     
    Dennis Tate likes this.
  16. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    391
    That is why we can (i think) consider that liquid "water" is some of "3 form" mix.

    For analogy you can use a spining coin; there is head, there is tail and there is edge.
    Woud you say the coin is head ? tail ? or edge ?
    No, but using plenty of coins, you can say that some form are present "in average", but the real physical forms are changing.

    Now, why talking about water ?
    Same question with microtubules, and same interesting answer : Because if we look for consciousness, we try to find some exotic behaviour that could better explain the exotic behaviour of consciousness (at most it is what we think).
    So water is a good candidate, because like microtubules it has quantum behaviour (3 forms with covalent/non covalent switching and at large scale (more than 1 "molecule")).
    And better than for microtubules, this quantic behaviour works at standard temperature (298K° around).

    Adding to this, we can, using hard science, list more than 20 unexplained anomalies (not explained with actual fundamental science of matter).
    No other molecule is so mysterious (or "exotic") as "water".
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,199
    This is not the case. The equilibrium constant for the dissociation of H2O into H3O+ and OH- : [H3O+][OH-]/[H2O] = 10⁻¹⁴.

    In other words, water is barely dissociated at all. It is almost all in the form of H-O-H molecules.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    On the contrary, H2O is one of the simplest molecules in nature. It's very simplicity gives it the ability (potential) of the 3 states in which H2O may become expressed in reality.

    Water can occur in three states: solid (ice), liquid, or gas (vapor).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    • Solid water—ice is frozen water. When water freezes, its molecules move farther apart, making ice less dense than water. ...
    • Liquid water is wet and fluid. ... (its molecular density making it so)
    • Water as a gas—vapor is always present in the air around us. (it's molecular density is at its lowest form)
    http://www.summitwater.org/story_of_water/html/3forms.htm

    Each state consists of exactly the same molecules at different densities and temperatures.
    Interestingly, liquid water is the densest form of H2O molecules.

    Ice floats on water

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here are three-dimensional views of a typical local structure of water (left) and ice (right.)
    https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshe...and_Liquids/7.03:_Hydrogen-Bonding_and_Water#
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    That is a false equivalency. More correct is saying that in all three states the coin retains the exact same metal molecular components.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  20. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Mostly because I work full time as a janitor plus......
    I picked up my wife after her visit to our children and grand dchildren on Saturday morning.
     
  21. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Chapter thirteen of "Stephen Hawking's Universe" that was entitled "The Anthropic Principle" goes into an Atheistic or Agnostic version of The Cyclic Model of the Universe that fits with the idea of their being an essentially infinite number of "Unsuccessful Universes" out there somewhere in which there is no life due to electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force, in those unsuccessful universes...... not being properly tuned to produce life and / or intelligence as we would tend to think of either life or intelligence.


    To at least some degree the Extremely High Energies postulated in fundamental or nearly fundamental energies by String Theory should, I would think, tend to produce a greater level of mental activity...... than the much lower energetic level electromagnetism that we can observe here in the four dimensional space - time continuum.

    I listened to several youtube lectures by Mr. Roger Penrose yesterday and I heard him refer to temperatures of several trillion degrees being generated within particle accelerators in Europe as certain types of collisions took place between subatomic particles. This fact tends to verify basic String Theory as it was worded even two or three decades ago.

    I also plead guilty to being somewhat affected by the character on Star Trek named "Q" whose off the scale capabilities fitted with what String Theory, as it was worded in that version of the article on it that I quoted from in the first or second post on page one, would tend to indicate might be possible. The writer who created the character "Q" was probably aware of basic String Theory.
     
  22. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    I plead guilty....... I have been assuming for more than twenty years that Intelligence / intelligence would begin in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy....... and then go through a process that in some ways might even resemble how computing memory storage has rapidly increased over the last three decades.

    I have also assumed that Intelligence / intelligence = life or Life???!!!
     
  23. Dennis Tate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    For the record......
    I really do not quite comprehend this question..... sorry... .but I thank you for adding this because there are others in this discussion who will know what you mean by this.
     

Share This Page