Inteligenta artificiala si constiinta umana

MindBlast, on Dec 15 2005, 14:49, said:

Ca practicant de arte martiale m-am izbit de problema asta si iti pot spune ca in acest caz vointa reprezinta mutarea atentiei de la durere la scopul dorit. Nu inseamna ca nu doare, dar durerea este ignorata si in acest caz neuronii sunt excitati in alta parte a cortexului decat in partea cu durerea. Si aici revenim la scop. Scopul insusi este depasirea durerii.
Ce intelegi prin depasirea limitelor?

landscape10, on Dec 15 2005, 15:03, said:

well .... easy ... depasirea unor limite impuse de catre societate sau de catre propria-ti minte.

MindBlast, on Dec 15 2005, 15:28, said:

O retea neuronala functioneaza la capacitatea ei maxima, nu isi pune limite.
Cat despre societate, va trebui sa abordam problema altfel. Omul e o fiinta sociala, un AI nu va fi. Nu se reduce totul in a imita felul cum functioneaza constiinta umana, este posibil ca acea constiinta AI sa fie pe alte baze.

landscape10, on Dec 15 2005, 15:41, said:

will it be able to get aware of itself?

MindBlast, on Dec 15 2005, 17:25, said:

Cine stie, tocmai asta era intrebarea topicului.
Eu nu pot spune un DA categoric, la fel cum nici tu nu poti spune un NU categoric, asta pana cand nu aflam ce suntem noi..si iarasi revenim la nesfarsita polemica: "exista sau nu Dumnezeu?"
:)

"Eu nu pot spune un DA categoric, la fel cum nici tu nu poti spune un NU categoric, asta pana cand nu aflam ce suntem noi..si iarasi revenim la nesfarsita polemica: "exista sau nu Dumnezeu?"

As vrea sa fac o comparatie:
O prolema de fizica: se da un sitem la t0 cu urmatoarele caracteristici.....
(un sistem termodinamic, electronic, mecanic...)
Ce se va intampla, in viitor la t1 ?

Deci, stiind legile care-l guverneza, tu stii precis evolutia sistemului.
Ce vreu sa spun de fapt este ca un sistemul fizic are o evolutie bine stabilita, pe care o poti sti sau nu, deci nu ia nici o decizie proprie.

Spre exemplu o piatra care care cade se accelereza cu g , fie ca ea vrea sau nu.

Este omul un astfel de sitem guvernat de legi precise, fizice.
Initial se credea ca nu, ca ar exista o forta divina care schimba miraculos substantele una in alta.
Acum s-a demonstrat ca nu este decat chimia, si deci legi, explicatii.
Nu stiu care dintre ele o fi adevarata.

Mi-am intrebat intrebat un coleg care stia mai mult.
Un exeplu simplu Euglenia Verde.
E o celula. E verde (clorofila) ca o planta. Dar pote "merge". Traiste prin lacuri.
Evindent, fiind doar o celula, nu are sex, dar face totusi schimb de gene cu altele.
Nu are ochi, dar percepe totusi lumina prin membrana.


A: -Mai, Euglenia Verde, pleca de la umbra si se duce unde e lumina.
B: -Da
A: -Ce o gandi Euglenia asta ? "Ce bine e la soare"  . Cred ca-i place la soare.
B: -Hhhh, mai ea nu ..., se duce la sore pentru ca acolo face mai bine fotosinteza. Se ghideaza dupa gradientul de lumina. Nu ia nici o decizie.


In sinea mea totusi cred ca Euglenia simpte placere cand sta la soare.

Oricat de complicat ar fi raspunsul oamenilor la stimulii externi este totusi un raspuns "mecanic"

Deci, noi mergem pe un drum dinainte scris.

Gurban_Dan said:

Nu tocmai. Sunt cateva impedimente
- nu putem cunoaste complet starea initiala a sistemului
- sistemul nu este izolat - trebuie sa iei in considerare starea intregului univers - dar nu ai cum.
- chiar si  cunoscand-o (cu legi cu tot) nu i se poate prezice evolutia
- sunt chiar sisteme care pornind cu aceasi stare initiala evolueaza aleator. Deci nu li se poate "prezice" viitorul.

Gurban_Dan said:

Poate ca e poate ca nu e. Nu poti folosi principiul de mai sus in a demonstra asta pentru simplul motiv ca nici macar comportarea pur "mecanica" nu este un drum dinainte scris.


cezar

morpheusdj, on Dec 13 2005, 00:43, said:

  S-a descoperit destul de recent ca exista doua regiuni din creierul uman (prima este zona subventriculara, de langa ventriculii I si II, de unde celulele stem migreaza spre bulbii olfactivi si a doua hipocampul) in care se afla celule stem care au posibilitatea de a se transforma in neuroni in timpul vietii adulte. Se pare ca acest proces are loc in principal in doua situatii:
- cand anumite zone cerebrale sufera "daune" fie prin accidente vasculare, fie prin traumatisme etc. si atunci o parte dintre aceste celule ar migra in zonele afectate si ar forma neuroni noi care sa ia locul celor distrusi (procesul, daca exista intr-adevar,  este totusi destul de limitat, dovada fiind faptul ca multe dintre leziunile cerebrale nu se "repara").
- amplasarea lor si in zona hipocampului sugereaza  implicarea lor in procesele de invatare si memorie, deoarece hipocampul are un rol cheie in aceste procese(in cazul leziunilor hipocampului apare amnezia anterograda, caracterizata prin imposibilitatea memorarii de informatii noi, desi subiectul are in continuare acces la cele memorate anterior producerii leziunii). Se stie de multa vreme rolul jucat de plasticitatea sinaptica (procesul de formare de noi sinapse si de "desfiintare" a altora) in invatare si memorie, dar se pare ca mai exista si situatii in care este necesara si introducerea in retea de neuroni noi.
  Unii cercetatori sustin ca ar exista un proces similar de neurogeneza si la nivelul neocortexului, dar aici inca nu exista dovezi solide, asa cum exista in cazul neurogenezei din hipocamp.
  De asemeni, se pare ca pe langa reteaua informationala neuronala, in sistemul nervos uman mai exista una, cea astrocitara. Astrocitele sunt celule gliale despe care se stia pana acum ca au rol trofic, de sustinere si de protectie (celulele gliale fac parte din bariera hematoencefalica care "alege" ce compusi biochimici sa ajunga la neuroni) pentru neuroni. Dar cercetari recente au aratat ca astrocitele comunica intre ele prin intermediul ionilor de Ca si a mesagerului secundar  inozitol-trifosfat care se leaga de receptori ai reticulului endoplasmatic si determina un eflux de ioni de calciu din interiorul acestuia (unde sunt in mod normal in concentratie mai mare decat in citoplasma) in citoplasma.
  Unii cercetatatori au propus o ipoteza conform careia astrocitele ar constitui o a doua retea informationala, cu o viteza de transmitere a informatiilor multa mai mica decat in cea neuronala (de vreo 100.000 de ori). Insa astrocitele sunt de 10 ori mai numeroase decat neuronii in sistemul nervos, asa ca se poate specula ca reteaua neuronala ar contine caile de mare viteza, "autostrazile" sistemului nervos, pe cand reteaua astrocitara ar cuprinde, metaforic vorbind, "drumurile de la tara".
  Lucrurile se complica in momentul in care luam in calcul si faptul ca astrocitele interactioneaza strans cu neuronii, avand un rol crucial in reglarea mediului ionic extracelular al neuronilor, in izolarea sinapselor si in recaptarea si degradarea unor neurotransmitatori dupa ce acestia isi exercita actiunea la nivelul sinapsei. De exemplu, se stie sigur ca astrocitele recapteaza neurotransmitatorii GABA si glutamat (se pare ca si in cazul altora). Glutamatul (acidul glutamic), desi este cel mai raspandit neurotransmitator excitator din sistemul nervos, in cantitati foarte mari devine neurotoxic, si atunci este necesara transformarea lui in glutamina. Acest proces se realizeaza prin reactia dintre acidul glutamic si amoniac, catalizata de enzima glutaminsintetaza, rezultand glutamina. Aceasta enzima se gaseste in astrocite.
  In concluzie, sistemul nervos uman s-ar putea sa fie mult mai complex decat credem noi acum, iar daca ipoteza "retelei astrocitare" se dovedeste corecta, atunci s-ar putea ca imitarea "sintetica" a sistemului nervos prin folosirea retelelor neuronale sa fie ceva mai dificila.

Edited by Naga, 17 December 2005 - 14:03.

Naga, daca poti explica-ne si noua la topicul despre imbatranire:

Ceva, orice, ce vrei.

http://forum.softped...showtopic=94536

Gurban_Dan, on Dec 17 2005, 15:36, said:

  Am dat un raspuns, nu foarte detaliat, dar cu mai multe link-uri unde pot fi gasite informatii interesante despre subiectul respectiv. :)  :peacefingers: Cred ca poate ar fi bine sa ceri moderatorilor sa mute topicul aici, pe "Editoriale".

Naga, on Dec 17 2005, 18:16, said:

Problema transferului de constiinta de la om la calculator este extrem de complexa.
Oricum incep sa ma indoiesc ca  acest transfer va putea avea loc pana cand nu vom intelege exact ce este constiinta. Cum spunea cineva pe acest topic, o constiinta AI va capata acest statut numai cand va fi capabila sa construiasca alte calculatoare, sa descopere si sa inteleaga alte legi fizice,etc, nu numai sa interactioneze cu mediul inconjurator.

Din pacate in topicul de fata apare o problema cu definitia constiintei umane.. Nu multi o cunosc, si eu nu ma numar printre cei care o cunosc, asa ca voi scrie despre problema daca vreodata vreo masina va putea fi dupa o perioada indelungata de interactiune confundata cu un om. Tot ceea ce stie o retea neuronala sa faca este sa memoreze in neuronii sai diversii parametri ai unei functii, sa modifice acesti parametri in functie de datele proba, eventual daca e destul de avansata sa schimbe chiar tipul functiei in functie de tipul problemei. Din punct de vedere biologic se comporta exact ca un creier, ori creeind legaturi intre diversi neuroni, ori modificand permisivitatea electrica a legaturilor dintre neuroni pentru a isi rezolva problemele. Se poate presupune ca se va ajunge in viitor ca tot ce tine de procese logice ale unui om sa poata fi simulate de un creier artificial. (pornind de la deductii logice, vorbire, recunoasterea de forme etc). Pentru a fi 100% 'uman' unei masini i-ar mai trebui doar sa simuleze emotiile (nu cred ca e greu, in fond si la noi emotiile sunt date de factori biochimici, diverse chimicale care ne afecteaza procesele normale imbunatatindu-le sau din contra), si (poate ceva mai greu) sa simuleze greselile. Practic absolut orice tine de actiune umana (inclusiv creativitatea) se poate simula, dat cu banul si ales ceva la nimereala. (parca vad o masina care in urma valorii unei variabile aleatoare determina ca pe data de 12 martie are astenie de primavara si isi modifica o serie de parametri (sensibilitate, grad de complexitate al proceselor euristice etc)). Incercati sa spuneti ce anume din comportamentul uman nu va putea niciodata fi copiat de o masina. Dialogul interior specific fiecaruia dintre noi? nu cred.. bataile inimii cand descopera ca este indragostit, si fiinta adorata tocmai l-a atins din greseala? se poate simula. Capacitatea de autoperfectionare? si acum se poate, nu-i sf. Va putea suma acestor simulari definita ca o constiinta a masinei? Nu stiu, dar e posibil..

Cornholio, on Dec 19 2005, 17:45, said:

  Teoretic orice aspect al psihicului uman ar putea fi simulat. Problema este data de complexitatea extrema a sistemului nervos uman. Pe langa faptul ca este vorba de un numar enorm de neuroni, numarul de sinapse este cu mult mai mare. La asta se adauga si existenta interactiunilor neuronilor cu celulele gliale, cu vasele sanguine si cu sistemul endocrin, mai ales prin relatia dintre  hipotalamus si hipofiza, dar nu numai (doar un exemplu: marimea si functionarea amigdalei temporale, structura cheie pentru generarea unor elemente ale activitatii emotionale, este influentata puternic la barbati de cantitatea de testosteron). Unde mai pui ca inca nu se cunosc cu precizie toate modalitatile de actiune ale multor neurotransmitatori (avand in vedere si faptul ca actiunea aceluiasi neurotransmitator poate avea uneori efecte diferite in functie de receptorul membranar care se leaga).
   La toate astea se adauga problemele legate de existenta neurogenezei in timpul vietii adulte si de posibila functie de transmitere a informatiilor de catre astrocite, despre care am vorbit mai sus.
  Sunt de acord cu tine ca teoretic este posibila crearea unei "masini" care sa imite creierul uman si care sa posede constiinta. Dar pentru asta trebuie intai cunoscut in detaliu modul de organizare si functionare al creierului (inca incomplet cunoscut), iar apoi trebuie creat un "creier artificial" cu acelasi grad de complexitate, lucru care cred eu ca este destul de dificil, dar nu imposibil.

Da, teoretic este posibil crearea unui creier artificial, dar sunt de acord cu parerile exprimate mai sus conform carora nu vom putea face asta niciodata pana cand nu vom stii in totalitate cum functioneaza creierul uman.
Totusi, depinde cum se pune problema. eu, daca as fi insarcinat cu construirea unui creier artifical as aborda problema din punct de vedere modular.
O aplicatie bazata pe module, fiecare modul este de sine statator, exact ca in aplicatiile informatice moderne. Fiecare echipa de lucru va fi responsabila cu crearea unui modul care sa simuleze o anumita functie. O sa dau un exemplu inspirat de un post anterior.

Modulul care simuleaza iubirea.

Ipoteze:
- Definirea unor standarde. Mie de exemplu imi plac femeile blonde,mute si orfane de mama
- La vederea unei astfel de fiinte inima imi va bate mai repede sau mai incet, in functie de cat de aproape este de standardele mele. Se va calcula un procent de compatibilitate, cu cat este mai aproape de 100% cu atat acest lucru imi faciliteaza alegerea
-Dupa ce alegerea a fost facuta, urmeaza faza de flirt, etc

O abordare modulara a problemei, (lasand la o parte gluma din exemple), ar usura mult situatia.

Broadly speaking, there are three types of approaches to the problem of consciousness:
- dualism (consciousness lies outside knowable science),
- emergence (consciousness arises as a novel property from complex computational dynamics in the brain),
- some form of panpsychism, pan-protopsychism, or pan-experientialism (essential features or precursors of consciousness are fundamental components of reality which are accessed by brain processes).

Problems:
1) the problem of subjective experience, other related enigmatic features of consciousness persist, defying technological and philosophical inroads.

2) the “binding problem”—how disparate brain activities give rise to a unified sense of “self” or unified conscious content. Temporal synchrony—brain-wide coherence of neural membrane electrical activities—is often assumed to accomplish binding, but what is being synchronized? What is being coherently bound?

3) the transition from pre-conscious processes to consciousness itself.
Most neuroscientists agree that consciousness is the “tip of an iceberg”, that the vast majority of brain activities is not conscious, and that consciousness can occur in brain regions which at other times are not conscious. But there is no explanation for a threshold, or transition from non-conscious, “sub-conscious” or “pre-conscious” processes to consciousness itself.

4) the problem of ‘free will. Do we indeed have free will—agency of choice—or are we merely epiphenomenal “helpless spectators”, following a deterministic behavioral path shaped by our genes and environment?

5) what is the nature of subjective time?


A quantum property is entanglement, or quantum coherence, in which components of a system become unified, governed by one common quantum wave function. If one member of an entangled system is measured or perturbed, other members are instantaneously affected, even over great distances. One example of entanglement is the famous “EPR pairs” (after Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen who posed the problem as a thought experiment in the 1930’s). Imagine two members of a quantum system (e.g. two electrons with complementary spin: if one is spin up, the other is spin down, and vice versa). If the paired electrons (both in superposition of both spin up and spin down) are separated by being sent along different wires, say to two different villages miles apart from each other, they each remain in superposition. However when one superpositioned electron is measured by a detector at its destination and reduces/collapses to a particular spin, (say spin up), its entangled twin miles away instantaneously reduces/collapses to the complementary spin down. The experiment has been done repeatedly with electron spin pairs, polarized photons and other quantum systems and always results in instantaneous reduction to the complementary classical state (e.g. Aspect et al, 1982). The instantaneous, faster than light coupling, or “entanglement” remains unexplained.

The brain transforms the quantum wave patterns of consciousness into electrochemical neurotransmitters. This information is further translated in different parts of the brain holographically into what we call reality.

http://www.valdostam...th/QuanCon.html

Edited by shapeshifter, 20 December 2005 - 15:04.

Quantum coherence
There are several distinct but very closely interrelated uses of the term "coherence" in physics.
For example:
- 'Pure states' are coherent,
- many-particle states may exhibit macrosopic quantum coherence,
- classical coherence is also important
The first two of these share in common that a quantum wavefunction informs the evolution of a physical system as a whole, perhaps nonlocally. The second two have in common that given systems exhibit patterning, so that information about one part of a system provides information about other parts.
"A quantum coherent state thus maximizes both global cohesion and also local freedom! Nature presents us with a deep riddle that compels us to accomodate seemingly polar opposites..." - Mae-Wan Ho, The Rainbow and the Worm
Coherence is important to the physics of nonlocality, computation, biology, and cosmology.

Pure States
For example, the fundamental picture of a particle in quantum mechanics is that all of the alternative possibilities open to the system co-exist as a 'superposition' in a 'pure state' which is said to be coherent. (The process which converts a pure to a mixed state is known as 'decoherence'.) In this sense one can say of the two-particle singlet state considered by EPR and Bell that
"The two particles are, as it were, entangled with each other in a pure or coherent state." (Ho, 1993) cf. Mandel's "Coherence and indistinguishability"

Macroscopic Quantum Coherence
A second, intimately related form of coherence involves multiple particles that that share a quantum state which is governed by a macroscopic wavefunction - this typically has the name 'quantum coherence', and typically involves the spaciotemporal organization of the multiparticle system. (This is closely related to what is called 'Bose-Einstein condensation'.)
"What is quantum coherence? This refers to circumstances when large numbers of particles can collectively cooperate in a single quantum state..." - Roger Penrose
Examples of quantum coherence in many particle, macroscopic systems include superfluidity, superconductivity, and the laser. Of these three paradigm systems, the former two (superfluidity and superconductivity) are basically equilibrium systems, whereas the the laser is our first example of an open system which achieves coherence by energetic pumping - this latter idea is of the greatest importance for understanding the general implications of coherence. The laser functions in thermal environments (eg. room temperature) and there are are other, perhaps many other, nonequilibrium possibilities for coherence to exist and endure at macroscopic and thermally challenging scales, as for example, Frohlich has shown...

Classical Coherence
When systems undergo phase transitions (e.g. boiling) they may become ordered...

Quantum nonlocality
The quantum framework is in some respects deeper than spacetime - the information flows which are deployed by the framework are difficult to characterize in spacetime terms.
"Before the measurement there is no particle pair; there is only a gigantic atom. This atom pervades all space. The experiment dematerializes the atom, and in its place two particles appear. Each materializes, as it must in the universe, so as to preserve the laws of nature." - Marvin Chester, Primer of Quantum Mechanics
Generally, physical systems have global properties which continue to evolve globally even as the system becomes spatially separated - when the "parts" of the system are measured then they will manifest correlations which embody (or "cash in") the previous global state. Might these correlations be the result of local processes, perhaps involving other, unknown or "hidden" facts about nature? No. (This is precisely what John Bell proved, in 1964.)
The process generating the correlations is "nonlocal".
Can it be used for signalling then? No. Given quantum theory signalling via the quantum process is not in the cards...
-  Yet quantum theory is an idealization, and some have shown how relaxing aspects of the idealization uncovers nonlocal possibilities.
-  More fundamentally, we are nonlocal by virtue of simply being. What happens in the universe, and in our selves, is very different than would happen in a locally bound, classicalesque world.

The history of nonlocality
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen first focused attention on correlated, spatially extended quantum systems in 1935, though in their argument they assumed 'locality' in order to find fault with quantum theory. 25 years later Bell's result showed that EPR's assumption was mistaken. In 1989, Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger sharpened Bell's results further by considering correlated states with 3 or more entangled particles.

There is a relation between the kind of entangled states considered in these proofs and the phenomenon of quantum computation.

How deep does it go?
The full extent of nonlocality as a physical fact is not well understood - for example, does a superfluid exhibit nonlocality? Generally, almost any "collapse of a wavefunction" appears to be nonlocal: is this an artifact of our description?
Since the 1964 analysis of John Bell (Bell's theorem) it is widely recognized that in some sense the nonlocality is real - quantum mechanics is a much different theory than one could assemble with local parts. In the words of Henry Stapp (1977),
"The present formulation asserts that a theory entails a nonlocal connection if there is no conceivable way for the results in each region to be independent of the choice made in the other region. Quantum theory has such a nonlocal connection: That is what Bell actually discovered."
It is probably not possible to signal using quantum nonlocality, though in my view it is a complete mistake to conclude from this that all of the nonlocality "washes out" in practice. (In fact it does not wash out!)
One could turn the question around by viewing the quantum description as completely global, and ask what is the root of the apparent, provisional locality.

What is at the root of nonlocality?
"That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in multidimensional-configuration space is the origin of the notorious 'nonlocality' of quantum mechanics..." - John Bell

Coherence and nonlocality
Usually quantum nonlocality is discussed in terms of correlated multiparticle systems such as those discussed by John Bell in his famous 1964 theorem and then later clarified by GHZ, David Mermin and others.
But more striking and significant is the qualitative nonlocal phenomena associated with coherent states, for example in Bose-Einstein condensation, superfluidity, Frohlich coherence, and perhaps other phenomena up to cosmological scales...
In fact, theoretically these two kinds of nonlocality have precisely the same basis: the unmeasured singlet state uncovered by EPR is a coherent 'pure state' despite its spacial extension, and when the parts are realized in a measurement (a la Bell) this coherence is harvested or cashed in.
Whereas the "EPR" connections are ephemeral and fragile, some forms of nonlocal coherence are robust.


Nonlocality and implicate order

1. Implicate order
Although submerged beneath the placid surface of generalization, implicate order can be very tangible...!
For example, a deck of playing cards might be arranged to that it appears to be randomly shuffled until one is shown or notices a pattern to the cards. This hidden order could be called implicate with respect to those who are unaware of the pattern arranged by the dealer, and 'explicate' to those who make use of the pattern.
What if, like quantum theory, you were congenitally unable to make out any patterns (in arrangements of playing cards) except that of a pure unshuffled deck? (...then you would use the word "random" for any configuration of cards which is sufficiently mixed-up looking.)
...but typically, of course, biological systems are attuned to implicately threaded information: rather than hearing sounds or noticing smells precisely in order of the physical magnitude of the sense data, organisms react to nuances of the environment which relate to their special interests. In the implicate sea of sound, smell, and light, the signature patterns of predator and prey, of family and beloved, are prioritized.

An Example of Bohm's "Implicate Order" - Crockett L. Grabbe
An excellent example of the implicate order can be seen in a phenomenon known as the "plasma wave echo." The experiment proceeds as follows. An external source antenna is placed in a plasma (ionized gas) and a large electric field pulse is imposed. The pulse creates a plasma wave oscillation that rapidly damps away. A short time t later another pulse is applied, creating another wave oscillation that damps away.
Immediately after this damping the plasma is back to a normal unperturbed state. There is no measurement technique presently available that could detect any residual disturbance of the plasma. However, phase information on the two pulses is contained in the microscopic velocity distribution of the particles. This information is a property of the whole plasma and is truly an enfolded order. At a time 2t this information
becomes unfolded as the plasma generates its own pulse from the phase information contained within it. This pulse is the plasma's echo to the first two external pulses.  A review of echos similar to this is given in Roy W. Gould, "Cyclotron Echo Phenomena," American Journal of Physics 37 (1969): 585-97.

2. Nonlocality
As conceptualized in modern theory the subtle orders spanning the spectrums of sound, smell, and light have something very important in common: they are local, passing through space one step at a time.
Changes in a quantum mechanical state affect the entire universe...
Bell showed (modulo experiments later performed) that what actually happens in the world is different from what would happen with local-causal connections. What happens in the world as it unfolds is more intricatey correlated, than could be generated by any theory or underlying set of parts which possess the property that what is done in one place does not directly effect what happens in other places...
...for example, when two spin-1/2 particles are created together in what is called the singlet state then subsequent measurements of their respective spins will be correlated in a nonlocal way (because they are born from a zero angular momentum state).
Bell's 1964 theorem states that with respect to the properties of multi-particle systems there is a well defined upper limit on the degree of correlation which can be derived from what he termed a 'local parameter theory.' As is well known, in the case of the two particle singlet state quantum theory correctly predicts greater correlation than this local parameter limit. After the particles separate one can ask them pairs of questions and receive consistent answers. It turns out that the great variety of possible questions implies a greater degree of over-all correlation than could possibly result from local parameters.
Bell's proof shows that it is not consistent to suppose that the choice of which spin attribute is measured does not influence the actual results of measuring certain spin attributes of the *other* particle - the proof shows that the two particles are not performing their spin dance according to a prearranged script which they each carry separately around with them.

3. Nonlocal order
To say, a la Bell, that the world is nonlocal, is to make a strong claim: that what actually happens in the world is different from what would or could happen in a local universe.
What actually happens is that a nonlocally self-referencing web of interrelationships persists and develops, characterized by a high degree of correllation imposed by symmetry - Imposed correlations like this (which are ubiquitous since all physical systems have momentum-energy relationships with other systems) constitute continuous formative constraints on the evolution of the universe.
As a corollary, the world may be quite generally expected to have corresponding nonlocal patterns running throughout.
Such patterns are orderings which are not explicitly represented within the formalism of science. They are what have been called 'implicate' orders... (From this perspective, Bohm and friends are using the idea of implicate order to get a handle on the nuts and bolts interconnections which are already prominent aspects of the quantum description.

4. Patterns and information...
The phrase 'nonlocal pattern' must be considered what could be meant by this. One often hears that the randomness of quantum mechanics "washes out" the nonlocality in actual practice, but proofs to this effect have been exaggerated! Within normal quantum mechanics proofs against nonlocal signalling are considered complete - however, they are based on a potentially unwarrented assumption, as was pointed out by Josephson and Viras.

Edited by shapeshifter, 20 December 2005 - 15:32.

Fred Hoyle and the Rubik’s cube
Imagine a blind man, randomly scrambling a Rubik's cube. How likely is it for him to get the right solution, by chance alone?
Now say you have two blind men scrambling a cube each. What is the chance that they both hit upon the right solution, by chance, at the same time? Impossible?
British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle won the Nobel Prize for astronomy. He calculated the odds against a simple functioning protein molecule originating by chance in some primordial soup as being the same as if you filled the whole solar system shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men and their Rubik's cubes, then expected them all to get the right solution at the same time.
Life is not contained within a single protein, however. Several proteins are required for even the basic functions of the simplest living organism. Even the most simple known cell, such as the mycoplasma, may have 750 proteins. The list of proteins essential for survival may be narrowed down to 238 proteins. The probability of forming these 239 proteins from left-handed amino acids has been calculated to be 1 in 10 29,345. Remember, the estimated number of particles in the universe is 10 30.
Many times we hear evolutionists using the term "primitive cell," although we have no example of such. One of the simplest living systems, the tiny bacterial cell, is exceedingly complex. Dr. Michael Denton describes the bacterial cell, which weighs less than 10 -12 grams, as: "... in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of one thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
Our human body has over 200,000 types of proteins in its cells, and the odds of just one of those proteins evolving by chance is vast. Sir Fred Hoyle, still an evolutionist, likens this to a blindfolded subject trying to solve the Rubik's cube. The blindfolded man has no way of knowing whether he is getting closer to the solution or actually farther away. According to Hoyle, if the blindfolded subject were to make one random move every second, it would take him on the average three hundred times the supposed age of the earth, 1.35 trillion years, to solve the cube.
Out of the 200,000 proteins in our body, roughly 2,000 provided the very essential function of cellular metabolism, similar to that in a bacterial cell. The odds of those essential enzymes arriving by chance is extremely large, almost improbable. As stated by Drs. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 20) 2000 = 10 40,000, which is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.". This is about the same chance as throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with a pair of dice.

Concluzia? Trăim într-un univers in-format.. non-aleatoriu..

Edited by shapeshifter, 20 December 2005 - 16:14.

shapeshifter, on Dec 14 2005, 15:30, said:

Iar versi tampeniile astea cu "s-a calculat" & stuff pe toate threadurile ? Nu-ti ajunge sa scri in ala unde ai fost deja pus la punct ? Aici e o discutie coerenta despre AI si tu vi cu incoerente...

Edited by andreic, 20 December 2005 - 16:14.