Max_B
Member
Sorry, still don't see how QM helps.
Seems pretty obvious to me how coherent interference can help to explain learning and memory.
But I agree, that it won't help you with your defined 'anythings'... Lol...
Sorry, still don't see how QM helps.
It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Can you explain?Seems pretty obvious to me how coherent interference can help to explain learning and memory.
It doesn't seem obvious to me at all.
Nope. Typoz summed it up very well.You appear to be on the no-such-things-as-facts bandwagon, too.
~~ Paul
Although I'm supportive of science, it's true that what it gives us is a model. The model is a tool we use as a way of understanding the world. Obviously in some respects it has been extremely successful. But we should not mistake the model for the thing it attempts to represent. When the model is incapable of explaining real-world observations, it is time to look for a better, more suitable model - but there are not necessarily any rules or methods to do that, it can be a matter of inspiration, luck, creativity, or something else.
What Typoz said is fine. However, that does not mean there are no facts. Since our entire perceptual world is a model of the "real world," one could argue that there are no facts. This makes sense if you restrict "fact" to pertain to facts about the real world. But why would you do that, when you will never have access to the real world and so never use the word "fact" at all?Nope. Typoz summed it up very well.
Nor is it unusual that you make no effort to expand upon your explanation when I say I don't understand. For example, are you suggesting that a memory is a quantum entanglement?That's not unusual.
It is cool if you want to use the word fact. But I'm guessing that all facts are relative knowledge. Our knowledge is a model of reality based on observed behaviors. There are tons of good things that you can do with the knowledge from that model. But it doesn't seem to answer questions like "what is matter?"What Typoz said is fine. However, that does not mean there are no facts. Since our entire perceptual world is a model of the "real world," one could argue that there are no facts. This makes sense if you restrict "fact" to pertain to facts about the real world. But why would you do that, when you will never have access to the real world and so never use the word "fact" at all?
If you don't want to use "fact" in the context of our perceptual model, then you need to come up with another word to distinguish between facts and other kinds of information, such as hypotheses.
~~ Paul
I doubt we can ever answer that question.It is cool if you want to use the word fact. But I'm guessing that all facts are relative knowledge. Our knowledge is a model of reality based on observed behaviors. There are tons of good things that you can do with the knowledge from that model. But it doesn't seem to answer questions like "what is matter?"
He's not using it in that context. He's using it in the context of proof.Of course there is. It's a fact that Hydrogen has one proton and that water is H2O. Perhaps you mean there is no such thing as scientific proof.
~~ Paul
Nor is it unusual that you make no effort to expand upon your explanation when I say I don't understand. For example, are you suggesting that a memory is a quantum entanglement?
I still have no idea what this has to do with human memory. We agree that humans memories exist because humans have past history, but where and how are they encoded?Not really, no. Most things are entangled before we make an observation, but the reason for this appears to be that they have a past history, which seems like one of the the more interesting parts of entanglement, at least to me.
I still have no idea what this has to do with human memory. We agree that humans memories exist because humans have past history, but where and how are they encoded?
~~ Paul
Interesting. I think they are stored in my brain.It seems to me that they are probably stored in something underlying space-time, which when processed, results in our classical observations of time, space, matter and energy, through which they are reencoded.
Paul! Use your imagination! We're in a fact free zone here.Interesting. I think they are stored in my brain.
~~ Paul
In my stomach?Paul! Use your imagination! We're in a fact free zone here.
Why are you creating an explanation that's complicated and explains nothing? Why not memories stored in the brain?It seems to me that they are probably stored in something underlying space-time, which when processed, results in our classical observations of time, space, matter and energy, through which they are reencoded.
Interesting. I think they are stored in my brain.
~~ Paul
Interesting. I think they are stored in my brain.
~~ Paul
They are encoded in the neuron weightings and in the interconnections. We don't know exactly how the encodings work.Where and how do you think they are encoded...?
It's not stored in the usual sense of a memory, but all spacetime is available, so the universe is one giant store.Imagine that memories are not stored in the brain, but it is more like a sense, an interaction with other parts of reality. We use our eyes to see things, separated from us by some distance in space. We use memory to "see" things that are separated from us in both time and space.
Nothing is stored. We connect to it. In real time.