Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Domenico Oricchio: on 12/4/14 at 9:10am UTC, wrote I am thinking that the next quantum notebook with a critical program, could...

John Merryman: on 11/4/14 at 16:26pm UTC, wrote castel, Sorry if I seemed to have gone off topic there. While I very...

castel: on 11/4/14 at 4:06am UTC, wrote To me, there is the ... Sorry. I missed that.

Anonymous: on 11/4/14 at 4:01am UTC, wrote John, I gotta clarify. My use of the word "forms" departs from the...

John Merryman: on 11/4/14 at 1:33am UTC, wrote castel, I would propose a slightly different distinction; Consider the...

castel: on 11/3/14 at 23:25pm UTC, wrote John, I'm basically pointing out the fundamental level of the nature of...

John Merryman: on 11/3/14 at 19:15pm UTC, wrote castel, Sorry that I haven't yet read the book and doing so would be...

castel: on 11/3/14 at 13:44pm UTC, wrote John, here's a synopsis. Intelligence is fundamentally...



FQXi FORUM
August 17, 2017

ARTICLE: Life's Quantum Crystal Ball [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Oct. 12, 2014 @ 11:04 GMT
I we say that each consciousness is life, then there is not more the problem of sterile organism or encysted organism (no metabolism or no replication).

There is only the consciousness problem to solve; but if we consider a conscious being like a statistical system (a system that consist of many parts), near a critical point (where a statistical system have great fluctuation that can give the free will), with a inner source of energy (metabolism, engine, chemical reaction, mechanical energy or a software in a running database) that give state transformation, then a conscious entity could be a new definition of life.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 17, 2014 @ 03:23 GMT
Look it, I know that you want comments on the article du jour...but really? Can you give us some red meat instead of this platitudinous stuff? For goodness sake, free will and free choice are philosophical issues, not really physical ones.

It is true that quantum action has a role in free choice and free will. So what? Quantum action has a role in everything that we do...it is gravity action that is suspect and so we must address the issues with gravity action.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 30, 2014 @ 15:31 GMT
Steve,

Here is an article at Aeon on basically the same subject, with a little more in the way of physical examples.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 30, 2014 @ 15:36 GMT
And similar article at the Guardian, by the same author.

report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Nov. 3, 2014 @ 10:36 GMT
The subject matter is interesting because I discuss the fundamental physics of intelligence in my just published book, along with other fundamental principles.

My views are a bit radical as some of you may already know here at fqxi. But I'd like to invite you to take a look at my ebook. There is a limited FREE ebook download at kinematicrelativity.com. The paperback is a bit pricy.

I do not know if my views on the subject matter will incite some discussion here. But it sure would be nice to see some insightful comments.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 3, 2014 @ 11:47 GMT
castel,

What is pricy for many of us is time. If you were to post some form of synopsis, or particular points, it might more effectively suit the limits of this forum, than expecting others to read a whole book and reply within the limits of a blog posting. Feedback is best generated by taking the needs of your intended audience into consideration.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Nov. 3, 2014 @ 12:40 GMT
Yes, John. Time is precious - especially for a book on fundamental ideas.

But thanks for the insightful reply.

report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Nov. 3, 2014 @ 13:44 GMT
John, here's a synopsis.

Intelligence is fundamentally input-process-output. The fundamental essence of intelligence is motion and it is represented by a vector. You can take that idea of the fundamental to the complex construct of the firing (motions) at the synapse and beyond. And consider that every motion/vector has its components.

So, at the fundamental physical level intelligence is a motion construct - i.e., either a particulate form or a non-particulate wave form or their agglomeration. This "physical formation" carries with it the "abstract information" - Wheeler's "it in the bit". And the "abstract" is of course the "metaphysical" that we normally don't care to discusss.

The human brain-and-body is a complex motion construct with every particle of the human form being a motion construct (this is my term for K.E.)

It seems that Still, Crooks and Grimsmo are working on the idea of quantum forms/constructs that define inference patterns or tendencies. My take...

I apologize for the rather foreign language. If you've read my book, I think the language would be more intelligible.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 3, 2014 @ 19:15 GMT
castel,

Sorry that I haven't yet read the book and doing so would be necessary to do justice to your argument, but I would like to comment: I very much agree with the general hypothesis that intelligence can be modeled in terms of motion, though I think you need to step back and put motion into its larger context. As Newton said, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Nov. 3, 2014 @ 23:25 GMT
John,

I'm basically pointing out the fundamental level of the nature of intelligence. I'm saying that intelligence is both abstract (mind) and corporeal (brain-body). We have noumena in the mind (i.e., the nous) and phenomena in the brain-body (which is the phenous). I make the distinctions between the dual aspects of intelligence. But I'm saying that these two aspects are pretty much unisoned - abstractions in the mind and corporealizations in the body. I'm saying that the quantum particles and quantum waves (motion constructs) the corporeal formations 'carry'/'store'/'represent' the abstract information (the ideas/thoughts). So, the brain-body receives external corporeal inputs and processes them, resulting in outputs of corporeal formations in the brain-body, and in unison is the mental information. Thus, we have the quantized formations that store information, and hence, the psycho-somatic tendencies. It seems that Still et all are working on the theoreticals of the quantum tendencies. They are saying 'inference', which is flavored with the 'uncertainty' idea, and hence, the 'freewill' idea. It appears that they are also working on determining the demarcations of things that act and things that are only acted upon - I.e., the demarcations for the animate and the inanimate. A tall order...

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2014 @ 01:33 GMT
castel,

I would propose a slightly different distinction;

Consider the point I made about time and the physical reasons for this. Energy is conserved and so in order to create new forms, old forms are constantly being dissolved, yet serve as the mold breaking away from the new forms, thus creating continuity, except when the energy reacts to the forms and it breaks/mutates.

...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 4, 2014 @ 04:01 GMT
John,

I gotta clarify. My use of the word "forms" departs from the classical. My forms are of the body and my information/formulations/ideas are of the mind.

The dichotomy is between the body and the mind, the phenomena and the noumena, the corporeal and the abstract.

To me, the fundamental essence of motion, which essence is the fundamental current in the corporealizations. Motion renders the definition of substance in the space dimension. And substance is rendered as mass or energy, but their underlying essence is motion.

There is also the fundamental essence of duration, which essence is the fundamental current in the abstractions. Duration renders the definition of instance in the time dimension. And instance is rendered as past and present, with the future yet forthcoming.

So, corporealizations are of motion and abstractions are of duration. Here we have the dichotomy identified in terms of the fundamental currents, which are always in unison - they occur concurrently.

The corporealizations and abstractions are both apprehended by the mind-and-body intelligence.

I wish I could discuss more, John. But I need to catch up on other things. In any case, there's the ebook for you.

Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


castel wrote on Nov. 4, 2014 @ 04:06 GMT
To me, there is the ...

Sorry. I missed that.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2014 @ 16:26 GMT
castel,

Sorry if I seemed to have gone off topic there.

While I very much agree thought is an expression of action, I just don't see that split between the body and the mind as particularly fundamental.

My personal experience is with a lifetime of working with racehorses and while they are extremely aware, they obviously don't have the most complex thought processes. That said, it is still very much an extension of feedback with their environment and my impression is that people are simply a more evolved and complex state. While I said the basis of consciousness hasn't been explained, its manifestation is very much a function of electrostatic, chemical and mechanical activity. The abstractions we formulate are necessarily abstracted from that activity and are patterns we used to simplify and clarify this situation, thus making it more understandable.

Regards,

John M

report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Dec. 4, 2014 @ 09:10 GMT
I am thinking that the next quantum notebook with a critical program, could be conscious and alive, and this remind me a Shelley's story for the mankind …

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.