But most of us don't live on a farm, and don't have the ability to kill our own food on a regular basis.
That being said I do think it's weird that so many meat eaters are willing to eat meats of animals they couldn't kill themselves.
If you are going to eat meat, you should be able to kill it or at least go hunting and experience the process. If you can't, then maybe eating meat isn't in your nature to begin with.
Nope. There's no such thing as a logical goal, unless it's as a prerequisite for some other subjective goal, and I don't particularly want to enslave the planet. I'm capable of feeling empathy for even poorly-simulated creatures in a videogame. Furthermore, the kinds of things I would call unethical because they involve another mind are also frequently risky. And even if these minds are simulated, they are simulated in a way which is similar enough to my own that the best way to predict their behavior is to think of them as minds, so there's still a legitimate question of whether it would actually be useful to know that they are simulated.
What's more, if this turns out to be something that's unknowable, it also immediately becomes irrelevant. And if it turns out that there are other minds -- and I've heard arguments for this -- that still doesn't tell me if any of the minds I think I'm interacting with are those other minds.
Empathy is only useful when it promotes security. In a world where empathy cannot be deduced into logical components, empathy will be a lot less useful as a survival strategy which is basically what empathy is. This meaning if the concept of liberty is scientifically disproved due to there being no free will, you don't have a logical foundation or basis from which to make the claim that empathy for people who do not benefit you is a logical conclusion.
It's logical now only because you want maximum liberty for yourself, so you don't enslave another as this makes slavery more acceptable and you'll have to deal with the same threat yourself. So in the US Constitution for example you have the concept of free will built into it, if they were to say everything were all predetermined then it's a lot harder to make a Constitution to govern behavior when no one is actually responsible for their behavior but the universe is. No personal responsibility and a lot of social structures would fall apart fairly quickly. So what I'm saying is you might feel empathy, but it doesn't mean it's logical or rational to act on it. Security dictates how most people act ultimately, not feelings. You might not feel like enslaving your neighbor, but if you know your neighbor is trying to do that to you, and the science basically supports that no one is actually free, it's just a matter of who controls who in any given situation.
The distance is pretty irrelevant
It's the size that matters. Consciousness would physically be very small, and if it's got anything to do with quantum physics, even smaller. It's also fairly fast and adaptive. Think about how difficult it is for us to deal with other phenomena on that scale -- sometimes we do well, but sometimes we run up against something like cancer.
Size isn't stopping us from trying to build quantum computers. Why shouldn't we study quantum consciousness? At some point it's just going to reach a point where we will be able to answer certain questions. Maybe a quantum computer will discover qualia and we will know, or maybe we'll figure it out through some form of quantum neuroscience, but eventually we will find out.
I'm not sure I follow that logic, but I'm even less convinced that this has anything to do with the question of whether governments understanding how consciousness works and manipulating it via quantum physics is a credible threat.
It's about control. What more do you need to know? Just like you want to control every cell in your body, once you find out these other minds are all fake then you know it's just a matter of gaining control over their bodies. Complete control over their bodies would allow you to treat their bodies as if it were your body, increasing your power.
Why wouldn't you want to be able to control as many bodies as possible? Even if you don't have the instinct most humans do and you have to accept that as a premise to any argument. You might not do something but you have to logically explain why someone
If you interpret it as independent of "self", and without choices, then it's pre-determined. Meaning what makes you have free will isn't just a matter of having control but to be able to make choices. Choices are as random as the input.
Meaning the input decides the ouput at least when we are talking about decisions. So no it's not random in the absolute sense. You give it the same pattern of input each time, and it will produce a similar pattern of output. But this at least to us would still look random because we don't know all the input sources in the entire universe, so the output isn't going to make any sense and appear random.
Anyway I concede this argument that you cannot have true random, but thats because none of the input as we know it is truly random meaning, it might be possible on paper if all the input were absolutely random, then of course the choice wouldn't matter but thats not what happens. For whatever reason the input is patterned in such a way so that it produces increased order. Why is the universe tuned to produce order? That is not something I can answer, but the fact that we are both discussing this is proof that the universe produces order.
It's possible that free will produces order, due to some preference for symmetry or beauty, but it still doesn't explain why. Why are particles shaped as perfect spheres? The most symmetric shape possible? They didn't select for cubes or triangles. So what force is causing this preference for order if not free will?
if the universe didn't choose order, then why do we have so much of it? I would go so far to say that the universe could not exist without this preference for order, because there would be no shapes, or no structure to the information.
Because those aren't terribly useful questions. I suppose they're interesting, but would I behave any differently if I knew that I didn't exist and that no other minds existed?
If no other mind exists then the logical thing to do would be to enslave the planet. Right? That would neutralize all threats to you.
Just because it's a matter of physics, why would you assume it can be controlled?
Know what else is a matter of physics? Stars. Black Holes. Supernovae
Those things are far away. The consciousness is apparently in your brain. They can gain more and more control over your thinking until you are a complete zombie.
Black Parrot has a point, though -- we already know far less exotic ways of affecting consciousness. And I would argue there are ethical reasons we should learn more about consciousness -- what we know now (psychology) goes a long way towards actually treating someone who is mentally ill.
Everybody who isn't you would be deemed mentally ill if you are the only mind that exists. They'd be mentally ill because you can't control them, not for any other reason than that.
I'm not convinced these are related questions. A compatiblist view would allow for the "free" actions of any master of the universe to be completely determined -- or, apply a more restricted compatiblism to the "master" part, so you can have a master who doesn't have free will. It's also possible that free will exists in the absence of any "master of the universe" at all.
If there is no free will, shouldn't we strive to control as much of the universe as possible and as many lifeforms as possible? For sake of security or for fun?
Random is free will. The random element of the universe is the element which chooses.
It would appear random because it would be the element that is most free. So far we haven't found anything that is anywhere near random. The only exception seems to be on the quantum level.
But can you have a universe without consciousness? No. So you answered the question.
Really? And how would one confirm or deny the existence of a "universe without consciousness" without observing it? If one can conceive of multiple universes existing, why couldn't one or more of those universes exist where there is no consciousness? "Ahh," you say, "it requires a consciousness to conceive of these multiple universes." However, even if you can't conceive of multiple universes, that doesn't mean they don't exist (and possibly without consciousness). Citation: Tree falling in forest.
That is the point. Only the observable universe exists. No observers would mean no universe because there wouldn't be a thing in it to perceive of itself. This means either our current universe is conscious, or our current universe is an illusion. And I don't think both these theories can be right.
So if it's an illusion, then consciousness is not real, when you look into the mirror thats not real, and nothing you observe or experience can ever be said to be with 100% certainty the real universe. Because in the universe typically you are going to see yourself as the most real thing in it, and if your consciousness is fake or illusion, then how would you jump to conclude that all these particles and other stuff you observe is anything more than information at best?
That question you ask is bogus and a fallacy. You have thoughts so you have forests. You don't have thoughts and so you don't have forests. As far as consciousness goes it all brains down to free will on the quantum scale.
If life is free, then it had to start at the quantum level. It's not like humans started out this complex, it took evolution. The same process would have to be found if we study brains and life to determine exactly what quantum processes take place in the brain when life begins.
Because if it's not linked with quantum mechanics then you are a robot and your consciousness or free will which you might want to believe you have doesn't really exist.
While I do agree with you it all comes down to free will, I don't think you have to believe in a soul to believe in free will.
Free will could be quantum. If it is then it could very well be caused by a particle just as the Higgs particle could cause matter. It would be a matter of finding the quantum mechanism that causes free will, or if it's not a particle it could be anything else on the quantum level that we have not been able to fully understand such as entanglement or wave function collapse.
That being said, we have to consider the political implications of answering this question. If we find out there is free will, this has a specific political implication on the side of advancing liberty. If we find out there is no free will, then how do you make the case against slavery if you're just a robot?
What I'm saying is governments and in some cases corporations seek to create the perfect robot, perfect machine, perfect android, and this question of free will is at the center of that. Do we want to answer the question? If we do it could very well create an arms race to gain control of the free will particle or of the human species on a level far more complete and thorough than currently imagined. Control of your ability to think, control of what you think about, control of your dreams, and of your brain in a way that a programmer controls the brain of a computer or a robot is what this could lead to.
I think its obvious here that the brain is more complex than our understanding. What I think is startling are the assumptions scientists and other folk have made already.
For Example:- Its a computational or logic processing device.
Maybe its more of a network card, linking our actual conscientiousness to our bodies. Its a fundamental difference but it would explain telepathy, reincarnation and a host of other phenomena. Personally I think it provides a better model for understanding our minds which I think are limitless and not limited by the size of our brains.
That phenomena isn't based on science. But it would explain languages, time, and evolution in a way that religion cannot. This could have serious unintended consequences though.
Penrose is the only one brave enough to ask the question; "Is consciousness real?" and try to answer it using physics and science.
But it's the same question that would be asked by a solipsist, do other minds exist? Do I exist? Why not try to answer that?
Well there are political reasons why we shouldn't. If we find out one way or another governments will seek to use it to enslave and torture. If we find out consciousness is a matter of physics and can be controlled, it opens up all new ways to threaten people, to torture people, to enslave people. But it also allows for the creation of robot-slaves who would be superior to humans in every way imaginable.
There are political problems, and social problems, and relgious problems involving these questions that overshadow the science. The science is about the only part that doesn't have major problems. Science eventually should be able to show one way or another, it's just a matter of what happens after we prove one way or another?
No free will exists? So who is the master of the universe?
But it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
This means either you believe you exist, and if that is the case then you have to solve the mystery of your own existence. Or you don't believe you exist, and consciousness and free will are fake illusions. This is the stance of eliminativists and apparently Greenspan.
All consciousness relies on electrons. You cannot have consciousness without electrons. So this would be one place to look.
But basically, if you don't have quantum consciousness you can't have consciousness on higher scales. So on some level these particles have self recognition even if it's through us. This doesn't answer whether or not there is free will, but the math is clear that if there is consciousness on the large scale it will also have to exist on the quantum scale. It's also proven mathematically that if free will exists on the large scale that it also has to exist somewhere somehow on the quantum scale.
For this reason, the fact that the math supports it, it's worth doing research and experimenting on. The problem or fear I have is if we did discover what particle or wave function is responsible for consciousness, or how, we'd have governments around the world using these discoveries to enslave and oppress people. It's the kind of question that I'd personally want to know the answer to, but I also recognize that as soon as we find the answer, it will open pandora's box which governments and corporations intend to completely exploit.
If we found a way to for example give consciousness to inanimate objects, or a way to have complete control over life in some way, or if we discovered that quantum computers could be made conscious, it would change everything probably for the worst because governments would then use this technology to enslave rather than use it in a transhumanist fashion. It would be used to make the perfect cyborg slaves, who have the mix of human consciousness, with the absolute obedience of a programmable robot. In essence this discover could lead to the end of "free will" as we know it, and lead to the beginning of technological slavery.
And unfortunately no political party is truly anti slavery. So we'd be collectively fucked.
This means that the particle cannot have a definite spin in every direction before it’s measured, Kochen and Specker concluded. If it did, physicists would be able to occasionally observe it breaking the 1-0-1 rule, which never happens. Instead, it must “decide” which spin to have on the fly.
When he wrote his first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind in 1989, Penrose lacked a detailed proposal for how quantum processing could be implemented in the brain. Subsequently, Hameroff read Penrose's book, and suggested that microtubules could be suitable candidates for quantum processing. The Orch-OR theory arose from the collaboration of Penrose and Hameroff in the early 1990s. Microtubules are the main component of a supportive structure within neurons known as the cytoskeleton. In addition to providing a supportive structure, the known functions of microtubules include transport of molecules including neurotransmitters bound for synapses and control of the development of the cell. Microtubules are composed of tubulin protein dimer subunits. The tubulin dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart, and which may contain delocalised pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm, and Hameroff claims that these electrons are close enough to become quantum entangled.[11] Hameroff further proposed that these electrons could become locked in phase, forming a state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate.[12][13] Furthermore, he tho
It's cheaper not to hire or pay for information security.
And when they do they probably don't hire the best. Let's face it, Sony is not innocent and I could care less what happens to Sony. I don't own Sony stock, I don't work for Sony, and I don't own any Sony products except for an old PSX. So I just don't care what happens to Sony.
Maybe other companies will now give a shit about information security.
Maybe if they cared as much about their customers as they do about profits and making money, this could have been avoided or at least negotiated. But now it's out of control. It's game over.
The hackers aren't going to stop. Sony needs to hire cyber warriors.
Slashdot Mirror
They have learned the value of secrecy.
In order words, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
But most of us don't live on a farm, and don't have the ability to kill our own food on a regular basis.
That being said I do think it's weird that so many meat eaters are willing to eat meats of animals they couldn't kill themselves.
If you are going to eat meat, you should be able to kill it or at least go hunting and experience the process. If you can't, then maybe eating meat isn't in your nature to begin with.
Nope. There's no such thing as a logical goal, unless it's as a prerequisite for some other subjective goal, and I don't particularly want to enslave the planet. I'm capable of feeling empathy for even poorly-simulated creatures in a videogame. Furthermore, the kinds of things I would call unethical because they involve another mind are also frequently risky. And even if these minds are simulated, they are simulated in a way which is similar enough to my own that the best way to predict their behavior is to think of them as minds, so there's still a legitimate question of whether it would actually be useful to know that they are simulated.
What's more, if this turns out to be something that's unknowable, it also immediately becomes irrelevant. And if it turns out that there are other minds -- and I've heard arguments for this -- that still doesn't tell me if any of the minds I think I'm interacting with are those other minds.
Empathy is only useful when it promotes security. In a world where empathy cannot be deduced into logical components, empathy will be a lot less useful as a survival strategy which is basically what empathy is. This meaning if the concept of liberty is scientifically disproved due to there being no free will, you don't have a logical foundation or basis from which to make the claim that empathy for people who do not benefit you is a logical conclusion.
It's logical now only because you want maximum liberty for yourself, so you don't enslave another as this makes slavery more acceptable and you'll have to deal with the same threat yourself. So in the US Constitution for example you have the concept of free will built into it, if they were to say everything were all predetermined then it's a lot harder to make a Constitution to govern behavior when no one is actually responsible for their behavior but the universe is. No personal responsibility and a lot of social structures would fall apart fairly quickly. So what I'm saying is you might feel empathy, but it doesn't mean it's logical or rational to act on it. Security dictates how most people act ultimately, not feelings. You might not feel like enslaving your neighbor, but if you know your neighbor is trying to do that to you, and the science basically supports that no one is actually free, it's just a matter of who controls who in any given situation.
The distance is pretty irrelevant
It's the size that matters. Consciousness would physically be very small, and if it's got anything to do with quantum physics, even smaller. It's also fairly fast and adaptive. Think about how difficult it is for us to deal with other phenomena on that scale -- sometimes we do well, but sometimes we run up against something like cancer.
Size isn't stopping us from trying to build quantum computers. Why shouldn't we study quantum consciousness? At some point it's just going to reach a point where we will be able to answer certain questions. Maybe a quantum computer will discover qualia and we will know, or maybe we'll figure it out through some form of quantum neuroscience, but eventually we will find out.
I'm not sure I follow that logic, but I'm even less convinced that this has anything to do with the question of whether governments understanding how consciousness works and manipulating it via quantum physics is a credible threat.
It's about control. What more do you need to know? Just like you want to control every cell in your body, once you find out these other minds are all fake then you know it's just a matter of gaining control over their bodies. Complete control over their bodies would allow you to treat their bodies as if it were your body, increasing your power.
Why wouldn't you want to be able to control as many bodies as possible? Even if you don't have the instinct most humans do and you have to accept that as a premise to any argument. You might not do something but you have to logically explain why someone
If you interpret it as independent of "self", and without choices, then it's pre-determined. Meaning what makes you have free will isn't just a matter of having control but to be able to make choices. Choices are as random as the input.
Meaning the input decides the ouput at least when we are talking about decisions. So no it's not random in the absolute sense. You give it the same pattern of input each time, and it will produce a similar pattern of output. But this at least to us would still look random because we don't know all the input sources in the entire universe, so the output isn't going to make any sense and appear random.
Anyway I concede this argument that you cannot have true random, but thats because none of the input as we know it is truly random meaning, it might be possible on paper if all the input were absolutely random, then of course the choice wouldn't matter but thats not what happens. For whatever reason the input is patterned in such a way so that it produces increased order. Why is the universe tuned to produce order? That is not something I can answer, but the fact that we are both discussing this is proof that the universe produces order.
It's possible that free will produces order, due to some preference for symmetry or beauty, but it still doesn't explain why. Why are particles shaped as perfect spheres? The most symmetric shape possible? They didn't select for cubes or triangles. So what force is causing this preference for order if not free will?
if the universe didn't choose order, then why do we have so much of it? I would go so far to say that the universe could not exist without this preference for order, because there would be no shapes, or no structure to the information.
Because those aren't terribly useful questions. I suppose they're interesting, but would I behave any differently if I knew that I didn't exist and that no other minds existed?
If no other mind exists then the logical thing to do would be to enslave the planet. Right? That would neutralize all threats to you.
Just because it's a matter of physics, why would you assume it can be controlled?
Know what else is a matter of physics? Stars. Black Holes. Supernovae
Those things are far away. The consciousness is apparently in your brain. They can gain more and more control over your thinking until you are a complete zombie.
Black Parrot has a point, though -- we already know far less exotic ways of affecting consciousness. And I would argue there are ethical reasons we should learn more about consciousness -- what we know now (psychology) goes a long way towards actually treating someone who is mentally ill.
Everybody who isn't you would be deemed mentally ill if you are the only mind that exists. They'd be mentally ill because you can't control them, not for any other reason than that.
I'm not convinced these are related questions. A compatiblist view would allow for the "free" actions of any master of the universe to be completely determined -- or, apply a more restricted compatiblism to the "master" part, so you can have a master who doesn't have free will. It's also possible that free will exists in the absence of any "master of the universe" at all.
If there is no free will, shouldn't we strive to control as much of the universe as possible and as many lifeforms as possible? For sake of security or for fun?
How is this better for a government than having a programmable robot?
If they are going to make sex slaves it would probably be best if they were at least human looking.
Random is free will. The random element of the universe is the element which chooses.
It would appear random because it would be the element that is most free. So far we haven't found anything that is anywhere near random. The only exception seems to be on the quantum level.
I agree with that. I'm just OK with a "fake" free will that depends on all my experiences and all those of my ancestors.
If you are a robot do you mind being treated like one? Do you care if you get treated as fake?
There are political implications.
Here you go/
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+will+AND+quantum+free/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1134
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4898
But can you have a universe without consciousness?
No. So you answered the question.
Really? And how would one confirm or deny the existence of a "universe without consciousness" without observing it? If one can conceive of multiple universes existing, why couldn't one or more of those universes exist where there is no consciousness? "Ahh," you say, "it requires a consciousness to conceive of these multiple universes." However, even if you can't conceive of multiple universes, that doesn't mean they don't exist (and possibly without consciousness). Citation: Tree falling in forest.
That is the point. Only the observable universe exists. No observers would mean no universe because there wouldn't be a thing in it to perceive of itself. This means either our current universe is conscious, or our current universe is an illusion. And I don't think both these theories can be right.
So if it's an illusion, then consciousness is not real, when you look into the mirror thats not real, and nothing you observe or experience can ever be said to be with 100% certainty the real universe. Because in the universe typically you are going to see yourself as the most real thing in it, and if your consciousness is fake or illusion, then how would you jump to conclude that all these particles and other stuff you observe is anything more than information at best?
What is a forest without thoughts?
That question you ask is bogus and a fallacy. You have thoughts so you have forests. You don't have thoughts and so you don't have forests. As far as consciousness goes it all brains down to free will on the quantum scale.
If life is free, then it had to start at the quantum level. It's not like humans started out this complex, it took evolution. The same process would have to be found if we study brains and life to determine exactly what quantum processes take place in the brain when life begins.
If we don't experiment and look we wont find out whether or not new physics are involved.
Because if it's not linked with quantum mechanics then you are a robot and your consciousness or free will which you might want to believe you have doesn't really exist.
It has been proven that free will would have to exist on the quantum scale if it exists at all. The math shows this.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S23/69/84A24/index.xml?section=announcements
While I do agree with you it all comes down to free will, I don't think you have to believe in a soul to believe in free will.
Free will could be quantum. If it is then it could very well be caused by a particle just as the Higgs particle could cause matter. It would be a matter of finding the quantum mechanism that causes free will, or if it's not a particle it could be anything else on the quantum level that we have not been able to fully understand such as entanglement or wave function collapse.
That being said, we have to consider the political implications of answering this question. If we find out there is free will, this has a specific political implication on the side of advancing liberty. If we find out there is no free will, then how do you make the case against slavery if you're just a robot?
What I'm saying is governments and in some cases corporations seek to create the perfect robot, perfect machine, perfect android, and this question of free will is at the center of that. Do we want to answer the question? If we do it could very well create an arms race to gain control of the free will particle or of the human species on a level far more complete and thorough than currently imagined. Control of your ability to think, control of what you think about, control of your dreams, and of your brain in a way that a programmer controls the brain of a computer or a robot is what this could lead to.
You cannot have consciousness without electrons
Well that goes without saying. You can't have anything in our universe without electrons...
But can you have a universe without consciousness?
No. So you answered the question.
I think its obvious here that the brain is more complex than our understanding. What I think is startling are the assumptions scientists and other folk have made already.
For Example :- Its a computational or logic processing device.
Maybe its more of a network card, linking our actual conscientiousness to our bodies. Its a fundamental difference but it would explain telepathy, reincarnation and a host of other phenomena. Personally I think it provides a better model for understanding our minds which I think are limitless and not limited by the size of our brains.
That phenomena isn't based on science. But it would explain languages, time, and evolution in a way that religion cannot.
This could have serious unintended consequences though.
Penrose is the only one brave enough to ask the question; "Is consciousness real?" and try to answer it using physics and science.
But it's the same question that would be asked by a solipsist, do other minds exist? Do I exist? Why not try to answer that?
Well there are political reasons why we shouldn't. If we find out one way or another governments will seek to use it to enslave and torture. If we find out consciousness is a matter of physics and can be controlled, it opens up all new ways to threaten people, to torture people, to enslave people. But it also allows for the creation of robot-slaves who would be superior to humans in every way imaginable.
There are political problems, and social problems, and relgious problems involving these questions that overshadow the science. The science is about the only part that doesn't have major problems. Science eventually should be able to show one way or another, it's just a matter of what happens after we prove one way or another?
No free will exists? So who is the master of the universe?
But it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
This means either you believe you exist, and if that is the case then you have to solve the mystery of your own existence. Or you don't believe you exist, and consciousness and free will are fake illusions. This is the stance of eliminativists and apparently Greenspan.
All consciousness relies on electrons. You cannot have consciousness without electrons. So this would be one place to look.
But basically, if you don't have quantum consciousness you can't have consciousness on higher scales. So on some level these particles have self recognition even if it's through us. This doesn't answer whether or not there is free will, but the math is clear that if there is consciousness on the large scale it will also have to exist on the quantum scale. It's also proven mathematically that if free will exists on the large scale that it also has to exist somewhere somehow on the quantum scale.
For this reason, the fact that the math supports it, it's worth doing research and experimenting on. The problem or fear I have is if we did discover what particle or wave function is responsible for consciousness, or how, we'd have governments around the world using these discoveries to enslave and oppress people. It's the kind of question that I'd personally want to know the answer to, but I also recognize that as soon as we find the answer, it will open pandora's box which governments and corporations intend to completely exploit.
If we found a way to for example give consciousness to inanimate objects, or a way to have complete control over life in some way, or if we discovered that quantum computers could be made conscious, it would change everything probably for the worst because governments would then use this technology to enslave rather than use it in a transhumanist fashion. It would be used to make the perfect cyborg slaves, who have the mix of human consciousness, with the absolute obedience of a programmable robot. In essence this discover could lead to the end of "free will" as we know it, and lead to the beginning of technological slavery.
And unfortunately no political party is truly anti slavery. So we'd be collectively fucked.
Sources
Quantum Entanglement Can be a Measure of Free Will
The same experiments that reveal the nature of entanglement can also be interpreted as a measure of free will, say researchers.
Do subatomic particles have free will?
This means that the particle cannot have a definite spin in every direction before it’s measured, Kochen and Specker concluded. If it did, physicists would be able to occasionally observe it breaking the 1-0-1 rule, which never happens. Instead, it must “decide” which spin to have on the fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
When he wrote his first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind in 1989, Penrose lacked a detailed proposal for how quantum processing could be implemented in the brain. Subsequently, Hameroff read Penrose's book, and suggested that microtubules could be suitable candidates for quantum processing. The Orch-OR theory arose from the collaboration of Penrose and Hameroff in the early 1990s.
Microtubules are the main component of a supportive structure within neurons known as the cytoskeleton. In addition to providing a supportive structure, the known functions of microtubules include transport of molecules including neurotransmitters bound for synapses and control of the development of the cell.
Microtubules are composed of tubulin protein dimer subunits. The tubulin dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart, and which may contain delocalised pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm, and Hameroff claims that these electrons are close enough to become quantum entangled.[11]
Hameroff further proposed that these electrons could become locked in phase, forming a state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate.[12][13] Furthermore, he tho
It's cheaper not to hire or pay for information security.
And when they do they probably don't hire the best. Let's face it, Sony is not innocent and I could care less what happens to Sony. I don't own Sony stock, I don't work for Sony, and I don't own any Sony products except for an old PSX. So I just don't care what happens to Sony.
Maybe other companies will now give a shit about information security.
While I do not agree with the illegal activity of the hackers, in a cyberwarfare situation what they are doing does make sense.
A lot less people will buy Sony products and services in the future when they know Sony does not take information security seriously.
Poor Sony.
Maybe if they cared as much about their customers as they do about profits and making money, this could have been avoided or at least negotiated. But now it's out of control. It's game over.
The hackers aren't going to stop. Sony needs to hire cyber warriors.
For $1000 no. For $5000-$10,000 yes.
Only because we know companies like Google, Microsoft,Facebook and others have the money.
Linux already has Gambas. Why bother with VB?