3 Substances in 3 Environments

[Laird]

AI discussion shifted here, to the AI megathread.

[Laird]

I present a metric to measure mind

I would define mind simply as the ability to detect and manipulate real-world probability waves.

We have very different definitions and understandings of mind. Yours doesn't even include phenomenal experience, let alone thought, and despite your affirmation of free will, "measuring" mind "in an informational environment" still strikes me as overly deterministic in its implications. It's probably not productive to say more than that, so I'll leave it there.

We have very different definitions and understandings of mind. Yours doesn't even include phenomenal experience, let alone thought, and despite your affirmation of free will, "measuring" mind "in an informational environment" still strikes me as overly deterministic in its implications. It's probably not productive to say more than that, so I'll leave it there.

I guess I find it interesting that you have such strong anticipation of my ideas.  I hope you will engage sincerely.

My empirically functional definition of mind has the benefit of quantification.  As in QM, the outcome happens after observation.  Experience is not ignored, but is the interaction of sensation with reality. 5 physical senses and additionally - senses that observe the other senses.  The sense of experience comes from real contact with the informational activity in our environments.  And while you may cling to the common physicalist's interpretation, I choose to think that it pragmatic to acknowledge actual and substantial information pulsing in the real world as probability waves. 

Do you acknowledge that it is unresolved as to the meaning of the wave function?  Its formulator saw it real and today it is cast as knowledge (meaningful info).

 Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction, although he thought that there had to be some other as-yet-unknown underlying reality. But others, such as Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, considered the wavefunction, at least initially, to be a real physical object.

The Copenhagen interpretation later fell out of popularity, but the idea that the wavefunction reflects what we can know about the world, rather than physical reality, has come back into vogue in the past 15 years with the rise of quantum information theory, Valentini says.

Laird,  Is this where to start your disagreement?  If there is an informational environment -- it can go a long way to supporting Psi and those who need to defend it.

[Laird]

I guess I find it interesting that you have such strong anticipation of my ideas.

Well, I was responding to what you wrote, and I even quoted it, but also in the context of your writing on this board in general.

I hope you will engage sincerely.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained from our engaging. I find it hard to decipher you, and to the extent that I succeed, I find gaps in what you say, so it would be likely to be a frustrating encounter for both of us.

No offence, but I'll leave it to those who understand you and your paradigm better to engage with you and it. I will simply say in the spirit of conciliation that I do agree that information is important, and that it could be useful to bring it into the conversation in general. I hope that you have better success with other members!