[General] Verification of Light Interactions

davidmathes8 at yahoo.com davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 8 21:56:58 PDT 2015


Logic gates alone do not provide a human interface. 

Also, in the attempts I've seen to understand the physics of consciousness, one ends up considering DNA as an antenna with the brain as a transceiver. Not everything need be a digital computer.
 On top of the simplest binary logic computer, there needs be layers of firmware, system software for the operating system, layers in applications and layered communications. In a computer network the  communications channels typically use OSI 7 seven layers of software and firmware over hardware (x.200 specification). TCP/IP is only a four layer model. Current implementations use additional layers and separate channels for management and security. 
Only one switch may be necessary but that switch better be really, really fast. One can do a lot with a single switch, preferably optical. Paging Alan Turing...
Turing_machine   
   - Universal Turing machine
   - Alternating Turing machine
   - Quantum Turing machine   

   - Non-deterministic Turing machine
   - Read-only Turing machine
   - Read-only right moving Turing machines
   - Probabilistic Turing machine
   - Multitape Turing machine
   - Multi-track Turing machine
   - Turing machine equivalents
   - Turing machine examples

The current status is that we can have a single atom switch, and switching can be done by a single photon. 
 Of course, your switch may vary. 

David




 
      From: "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de>
 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu> 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 8:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
   
If the most complex computer system is nothing but a (big) collection of off-on switches (binary logic), surely "the" mind, with orders of magnitude more switches, need be little else.     Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr
Von: "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "M.A." <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu>
Betreff: Re: [General] Verification of Light InteractionsPlease ignore last email, I hit send by accident.
Richard

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Interesting discussion.
>> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of
>> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes
>> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF)
>>
>> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is
>> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have
>> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e.
>> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included
>> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe,
>> and, I believe, only one language.
>>
>> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is
>> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a
>> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists
>> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial
>> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that
>> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge.
>>
>> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising.
>> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things:
>> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually
>> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind
>> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls.
>> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it
>> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting
>> happens along (for part of) the way...
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700
>>> From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
>>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>>
>>> Hello Chandra,
>>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or
>>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need
>>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical
>>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. The old
>>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized
>>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may
>>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But
>>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself is yet
>>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter
>>> ?all the way down?.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150909/0406000b/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list