LOL

These are alterations of the magnetic fields from sources outside the cranium and outside the myelin sheath which impact the neural processing. Would this not be indicative of quantum influences in neural processing?

They are indicative of EM interference. Quantum interference and effects are something else entirely, and outside of the laboratory, have only been found to occur on very tiny scales associated with atomic structure, as in photosynthesis. Quantum modulation -- that is, a quantum effect that changes the output of a cell based upon evaluation of the inputs -- is possible, but only speculative at this time. Quantum interference, that is, changing the output of a cell based upon external quantum events, is wholly speculative; we're unaware at this time of any such event occurring in nature and I personally, at least, am unaware of a natural means for it to occur.

Given that these effects are sourced outside the cranium, it would seem plausible then that the current generated as a signal propegates[sic] down the axon of neuron A would have an impact on parallel neuron B firing due to the magnetic field generated from A's firing. These generated magnetic fields are strong enough to be detected outside the cranium and are the basis of some FMRI techniques.

FMRI - at least as far as I know - works by intentionally orienting the magnetic impulses of hydrogen atoms, and then uses the newly resulting magnetic field to indicate brain activity by proxy of blood oxygenation. Hemoglobin is diamagnetic when oxygenated but paramagnetic when deoxygenated. This difference in magnetic properties leads to small differences in the MR signal of blood depending on the degree of oxygenation. Since blood oxygenation varies according to the levels of neural activity these differences can be used to detect brain activity. But this is not a magnetic field generated by the brain, it is an externally stimulated one (using extremely powerful external fields) and even so, it does not show any signs of affecting brain function, which in turn argues, again, for the lack of effect of magnetic fields at the level of the neurons.

Here's my thinking on the kind of thing you are talking about, admittedly somewhat off the cuff: Magnetic fields that are generated by current along a conductor are proportional to the inductive impedance of the conductor. Similarly, the amount of current induced in a nearby conductor is proportional to the initial signal size, but reduces by distance (square law) and to the lack of or presence of an impedance match between the two. The poorer the impedance match of the receiving element, the less signal will be impressed upon it by the field, which carries very little power. We must consider that the signals are low and so therefore are the initial field intensities. Because of this, the interior signal condition of the receiving element is extremely likely to drown out -- subsume -- any neighboring interference. And that's actually what FMRI, again the kind I am aware of, indicates. You can boost the magnetic fields within the brain quite a bit and there's no detectable difference in brain function; certainly the brain still works and so I think this tells us pretty clearly that the brain is not very sensitive to this sort of thing. One caveat: magnetic fields generally induce voltages when they are changing, not when they are static, so frequency could easily be an issue here. But now we go back to the experience of high field exposure in the pursuit of various radiative undertakings, again at every frequency from sub-hertz to gigahertz, and this has shown us that the brain continues to operate without any particular notable reaction at all.

Can you give me a pointer to the FMRI techniques you were thinking of?

There are actual articles on inter-neuronal communication via electromagnetic waves: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... and Neural and Brain Modeling by Rondald MacGregor

These articles talk about electric fields -- not magnetic fields. We do know that the aggregate fields of many neurons firing in relative synchrony can be detected via electrodes, and that creating similar fields internal to the brain affects its operation; but again, we also know from radio and electrical work that the effects of externally applied magnetic fields in inducing electrical impulses are not indicated, probably due to a lack of inductive pickup -- small conductor lengths are only resonant, and therefore capable of efficient power transfer, at extremely high frequencies. In either case -- effect or no -- the much smaller scale (short effective distance) of quantum events doesn't really allow us to apply the information about the one to the other without some guiding evidence that it is actually happening, and that is presently not the case. I don't think it is very likely at all, but as I indicated previously, that's based on the current state of my knowledge about the matter, which I think (hope!) is fairly broad.

Ultimately what this points to is that our mathematical models of neural networks and dynamic bayesian networds[sic] are not exactly what is happening inside the brain. At best its a discrete approximation to a continuous space which exists in a feedback loop with itself. Kinda like a Summation approximation for the Integral of a function.

I am moderately confident that the evidence does not support such a contention at this time. However, let's say that it is so. Then the question becomes, are our current models accurate enough? Given our present ability to reproduce small neural systems and get results that match, it would seem that at small scales -- which is really what we're talking about, I think -- our understanding is sufficient. Certainly from an empirical standpoint, we have been able to do many interesting things with simulation of what I'll call "isolated neural systems" just so we have a handle on the matter, as opposed to an "externally receptive neural systems." Current undertakings show that working to replicate the presently known performance metrics definitely results in usable and very powerful deterministic results. It may well be that even if your suggestion is correct, we won't run into it as a functional limitation although It certainly is interesting to think about even in a speculative manner.

The topological graph structure of the nueron[sic] connections through dendrite and axons is dominant, but it is not dominant enough to eliminate the influence of the fluctuations in the ambient electromagnetic fields. The above articles provide evidence of this. It's not just speculation.

That externally applied electrical fields can create effects is known, and that there are internally generated electrical fields is also known, but the idea that the signal levels of the actions of nearby neurons affect other nearby neurons remains speculation. Even if it is so, and it is significant to how the system processes its signals (see next paragraph), it still falls directly into the electrical, chemical and topological three; none of it signals or suggests the existence of quantum interaction or modulation.

When we create neural networks, we find that they are significantly more useful and effective when the transfer functions are sigmoid or sigmoid-like in that the stable states are high and low, very much binary, whereas the shift between states is not a significant player in stable neural results. I think this is likely also with respect to the neuron (speculating), as neurons that were unable to remain stable would seem to be hard-pressed to represent memory or even consistent thought patterns without disruption. Having said that, however, there are many signals in the brain that operate in repetitive temporal patterns, and perhaps this is a counter indication, though since timing is very much a factor in nervous system communication (see Numenta's work), it may simply be a result of the physical connectivity along the neuron's input channels.

My highest confidence presently rests with the idea that while what we perceive in an aggregate fashion as "mental activity" -- consciousness, memory and so forth -- is both emergent and widely distributed among many neural elements, that distribution is within the network and not any kind of a field effect outside of them, or consequent to significant EM field or quantum interactions between otherwise unconnected neurons. That doesn't mean that applying fields externally won't have an effect -- I'm saying that the brain is apparently stable within its own environment and so modeling, simulation and emulation without non-connected effects is presently what is indicated as the likely equivalent mechanism.

That's all definitely interesting speculation, but the point remains: As far as quantum effects go, it is all speculation. Nothing like what you suggest has been discovered; further, no effect has been detected that cannot be attributed to one or more of the chemical, electrical or topological mechanisms we're already aware of.

As to lowish resistance, stray capacitance and inherent inductance providing for signal coupling, that's conceivable but has not been found. We know that the many layers of a lipoprotein called myelin (the myelin sheaths) provide a very effective form of EM isolation along the nerves themselves, and then at the edge of the skull, there are several layers (skin, lipoids, the skull, the dura, the CSF-carrying arachnoid, and the pia) that do an extraordinary job of keeping brain signals in and external signals out, which is part of why we are extremely confident that the mind operates inside the skull and nowhere else, and that the various related superstitious speculations that claim otherwise are invalid.

Radio operators have been exposed extensively to RF at about any frequency from "DC to daylight" as the saying goes, at just about any power level you can imagine, as well as all manner of static EM fields, and from this we know that it takes an enormous amount of non-nerve-signal, non-directly coupled interference to have any detectable effect upon any portion of the mind at all. Further, we know that if we go in, in an invasive manner, surgically implanting electrodes and directly stimulating the nerves, once the myelin has been bypassed, only a tiny signal is required to destabilize / change what was going on prior. This in turn implies that the myelin is doing a really stand-up job of keeping signal integrity, and therefore against much credence for internally generated interference along the actual nerves. Within the cell, one could -- should -- think that what is going on is integral to the stability of the cell itself, and again, we know only of chemical, electrical and topological elements that operate as modulators at this time.

There's one more thing. Poor myelin sheathing is a known causative factor underlying many really serious disease processes. That's not ultimately definitive, but then again, it certainly doesn't argue in any way for interference being a good thing.

This, all taken together, strongly indicates that whatever is going on in there, it's very stable with regard to decoupled interference / cross-talk of any kind, local or otherwise.

Tomorrow, these conclusions may all be different due to new data. But as of right now, those three -- the "big three", I sometimes call them -- show every sign of being all there is.

The iWatch is a fragile thing that won't last very long without specialized maintenance, replacement parts, et cetera.

That hasn't stopped us from making them, though, has it? That hasn't stopped it from being created by us for a specific purpose, has it? That hasn't made nature produce one on its own, has it? Remember, the claim was: "If grey goo replicators were possible, evolution would have already created them." Clearly the IWatch is possible; yet nature didn't create it. Therefore, it is a flat-out given that "If grey goo replicators were possible, evolution would have already created them." is invalid logic. The fact is, special purpose devices can, and have been, made by us, that evolution has not even come close to, which fact destroys the above assertion completely.

Grey goo replicators have to get energy from somewhere. Where?

Well, let's see. There's light; heat; motion; all in the environment, available for harvesting. That oughta do for a start. Then there's magnetic induction from a central source, and also the electrical component of RF emissions. Then there's chemical energy, atomic energy... for all we know at this point there's energy in vacuum -- a lot of theory points that way. So, presuming we can make disassemblers in the first place (not a given) odds are good that we can power them, or get them to power themselves. Or both. They may work in a bath of energy supplying chemicals, they may work by harvesting available energy, we may be the supplier of that, or nature may -- the possible and potential variations on the theme are quite extensive.

The organisms which can break down anything are readily out-competed by a variety of organisms which between them can break down anything. And that's why grey goo is not a credible threat.

Nope. Grey goo is not an organism. It won't be evolved, and it won't be competing. It'll be working. Like an iWatch. The potential to create such has nothing at all to do with what organisms are in the environment. You see anything in the biosphere "out-competing" an atomic weapon? No. That's because it's a purpose-designed machine. It does what it does, regardless of who made it; but we made it and nature didn't, and biological evolutionary competition and selection are not in the least relevant to the mechanism of the bomb, no more than they would be to the mechanism of a nanite of any stripe. Or an iWatch. :)

Just an also-ran. Chuck Norris built an AI out of RTL the day the chips were shipped. He kicked its ass in an intelligence test and it committed suicide.

If grey goo replicators were possible, evolution would have already created them.

Yes, that's why nature created the iWatch.

Oh.

Wait.

I have no idea if quantum computing will ever be a thing we want to use, but I know we're going to keep talking about it like we talk about nuclear fusion being humanities[sic] salvation.

Well, except that we have no particular evidence of "quantum computing" going on around us, whereas the reality of fusion reactions producing heat is an empirical fact, as are stable fusion reactions (look up in the daytime, dark filters strongly indicated.) If quantum computing is going to be a real thing, we'll have to create it from the ground up -- and that's precisely what we're trying to do.

So while I agree that quantum computing presently shows all the aspects of something almost entirely unknown, fusion is a technology we have already used (in the Castle Bravo weapon detonated at Bikini atoll, for instance), see working in nature in basically exactly the form we want (our star) and are simply working to tame down (various fusion power experimental setups and projects in progress.)

Presently, there are many reasons to speculate that we will have working fusion reactors on various useful scales; not so many to think that we can put quantum effects to use in significant computing contexts.

There is some investigation that suggests that quantum consciousness is possible based on interactions between microtubule structures inside of neurons.

No, there isn't. In fact, the term "quantum consciousness" is nonsensical. Unless you consider a bipolar transistor to have "quantum consciousness", and in which case, it isn't nonsensical so much as meaningless.

I think you're confusing Woz with Chuck Norris. :)

But recent advances in quantum computing have him reconsidering his stance.

To date, zero evidence of any active quantum process modulating the workings of human (or other) brains, regardless of low level structure, has been presented.

Consider a bipolar transistor. It is true that quantum effects make it work, in the sense that it definitely wouldn't work without them, but they are not, in any way, used to modulate or otherwise participate in actively, variably, moderating what the transistor does when actually performing -- amplifying, switching, etc. That process is exclusively moderated by current (electron) flow quantity -- for example, you modulate the current flow, the transistor accordingly modulates the current flowing between the collector and emitter. A bipolar transistor does not respond to quantum events (nor are any applied to it within the circuits we use every day), nor does it produce quantum outputs for the purpose of affecting other components.

The same can be said of the brain. Quantum effects are present -- we know this because two of the three active brain building blocks (chemistry, electricity) are what they are due to low level quantum effects. But just as one can very accurately model and simulate or emulate a transistor and its activities without ever considering anything at all on the quantum level, so it is with neurons -- all the evidence, bar none, presently says that brain operations are performed using chemical, electrical and topological moderation. Of quantum moderation there has been absolutely no sign at all.

Active quantum effects do play a role in some natural systems. For instance, quantum superposition is an active mechanism in photosynthesis. This was discovered because in photosynthesis something very low-level, but obvious (extreme high efficiency in energy conversion) was happening that could not be explained; when they went looking for what the mechanism for that was (by examining the precise states of molecular photosynthetic antenna proteins), that's the mechanism that was found.

The critical difference is that neurons and glia have not been found to exhibit any low level behaviors that are otherwise inexplicable.

The vast majority of speculation that "quantum" processes actively modulate brain operations is uninformed, typically brought about by fundamental misunderstandings of quantum effects, which in turn have been disseminated by the popular media attempting to "simplify" quantum mechanics for the layperson. Among the exceptions, none of the suggested ideas have yet to be backed by any evidence; there's no reason to think that they will hold up at this juncture. Determining that quantum modulation was ongoing would also have to be accompanied by the discovery of a presently unknown and non-indicated modulating mechanism -- but there's presently no evidence for that to even stimulate a question along those lines.

The relevant, fundamental question with regard to AI is: Can we, using other technology such as software emulation and hardware neural analogs, perform the same kinds of operations as a neuron, with all known modulating effects of the glia (propagation delay, synaptic neurotransmitter uptake, topological scaffolding/ specificity)? The answer to that is a definite yes. Consequently, just as with modeling and emulating a transistor's function, there has been, and no future likelihood portends of, any role for quantum operations whatsoever.

So when someone -- even someone as interesting and accomplished in other fields as Wozniak is -- starts talking about quantum computing ushering in AI in some fashion, you may rest assured that they are not talking about anything known to be valid in AI research today. However, he has drawn the correct conclusion from his incorrect perception of brain operations: The impending debut of artificial intelligence is not science fiction. Simply given that we can keep working on it (no nuclear wars, bad law, etc.), research is now moving forward in ways that were simply unimaginable just a few decades ago and the low-level unknowns along the path best described as "brain emulation" have dwindled to matters of structure. Even these are now falling with researchers like Numenta doing practical work along the lines of cortical structure and processing. Much of that is available for download and experimentation, by the way -- fascinating stuff.

I've written more about the chemical, electrical and topological nature of the human brain here for those who are interested.

So water hitting your car causes risk.

Yes, it certainly does. A sudden splash that opaques your windshield and/or distorts your view -- which a water balloon can most definitely do -- can startle and disorient the driver, leading to dire consequences. Throwing water balloons at vehicles is not a harmless prank. It is a thoughtless act that can directly endanger others. It is shortsighted and naive to characterize it any other way.

I guess you never drive when rain is predicted.

First of all, rain is an act of nature. Consequently you're going to have trouble equating it to voluntary human action. Secondly, rain can indeed endanger drivers. As can sudden splashes from puddles, clouds of spray from passing trucks and so on. Mitigating these risks is a big part of why cars have windshield wipers, why companies sell products like "Rain-X", and why sane people drive differently when rain interferes with their view of the road and/or the vehicles on it. And yes, absolutely, if rain is predicted, it is factored into my driving plans. Likewise snow, hail, high winds, or sandstorms.

I think your logic is flawed.

You have not demonstrated this in any way. You may, of course, continue to attempt to try. :)

So I'm trying to identify the edges, if any.

There aren't any when offense is the metric. There certainly are where incitement is concerned, though. You put your finger right on one of them: when incitement is directed at someone who is not competent to take responsibility for their own actions -- such as your putative mentally ill minor.

Offense is real, and measurable. It can be measured with medical tools, like you can see a bruise on someone's nose when you hit them. Yet the nose is sacred to you, and the ears aren't.

Pleasure is real and measurable with medical tools as well. So is itching, the length of your fingernails, and the salinity of your tear ducts. The point is that measurement is not the determinant. The determinant is, is it harmful, and with offense, the answer is no unless you undertake self-caused harm entirely on your own.

For your benefit, from my other writings:

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

No one in the USA (or anywhere with sane law) has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it is also flawed in that it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense." It relies on the idea that we must not cause harm.

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration of others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

Is being offended a harm? If so, should it be illegal?

No. And no.

That would move the discussion from "offense" to "harm" so that a rational discussion could be had.

No, it simply miscasts offense in an attempt to gain an unjustified rhetorical handle on it.

Offense is like a water balloon thrown from a bridge at a passing car.

No. It isn't. When someone messes with your wallet, your person, your reputation, your family in like manner, or your property, you have been interfered with. Actions designed to remedy the interference can now be put on the table. This is a very sane way to look at these matters, and it is generally what anyone seriously considering them will come up with. From it, we derive that any such action constitutes violation of the principle that "your right to swing your fist ends at anyone else's nose", or in other words such action is "swinging one's fist where it impacts the other person's nose" and so we don't accept it as valid action when considering these issues.

The water balloon constitutes physical interference with your property, your path, and your ability to drive in a safe manner, thereby additionally and (further) irresponsibly constituting risk to yet others via potential secondary and tertiary effects. Your suggestion is not the same, or even similar to, someone cracking a dick joke.

Does it matter if the "offensive language" is an adult trying to talk a mentally ill minor into suicide?

This is not "offense." This is incitement and inappropriate exercise of power. You are moving the goalposts quite a distance here.

"Offense" is seeing or hearing something that you don't approve of, and undertaking, at a minimum, a line of thought that criticizes that thing. Offense may often further extend to a verbal or written reaction, but its root remains in your own thought processes, for which you, and only you, are responsible.

If others are made responsible for what you think, then it follows that everyone is responsible for everything everyone else thinks in an unending causative loop, and as virtually everything offends someone, life would be constrained to living in an isolated environment so no one could see, hear or otherwise be exposed to you -- as your speech, appearance, actions, or even your very presence might very well be offensive to them.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that something you find offensive, should also be found offensive by others; even so, no one has the obligation to agree with you, or even to pay you any attention. But when you impose control of others based on your perception of offense -- legislation, rule making -- now we're back to behavior that can only be valid on property you own or otherwise control (rent, have custody of, etc.)

On the other hand, tolerance, that thing we offhandedly characterize as "live and let live", is a social practice that leads to people generally not interfering with others, or even confronting them with argument. Highly recommended. It's very respectful of the personal agency of others. Note that this is not advice for discussion; it simply applies to venues and happenings that you were not involved with in the first place. There's nothing wrong with amiable discussion of issues that concern you, of course, as long as the other party(s) wish to engage.

Not only is it funny (with overtones of pitiful), it gets a rise out just about everyone who cares to erect an objection. Rigid, upright individuals, blood flowing copiously to their heads, cocking their virtual pistols and ready to shoot the first time someone rubs them in a manner that provides enough friction. It's a penetrating form of humor, a kind of humor that some have to stretch to get, especially those who are anally retentive. For others, it's just plugging along as usual, strapping on the first thing they come to, and then using it to probe everyone within reach. I don't know why it's got you so inflamed. Me, I'm having a ball sacking the opposition. I can't do it all the time (I'm old) but I find it satisfactory to work in spurts. And while my youth is gone, at least I can remember it as not so much checkered, as spattered. Because the rubber didn't always meet the rode, y'see.

There is no right to create a hostile working environment for women.

What you want is an environment that is hostile to men. Offended by this project? WTF are you doing nosing around the project? Offended by strippers? WTF are you doing nosing around strip clubs and the like? Offended by foul language? Why are you listening? Offended by... well, you get the idea. You don't like something, don't pay money for it, don't support it, don't publicize it, don't bother with it, etc. Find something you DO support and do something you find to be positive. Otherwise, yes, you're going to be offended, and it's your own stupid fault.

Until someone messes with your wallet, your person, your reputation, your family in like manner, or your property, your right to exert control ends on property you have control of (which usually means you own or rent it.) Other than that, you can say anything you want, anywhere you want but on property others rent or own where you are not, and should not be, in control, and sane people will roundly ignore you.

Because there truly is not, and should not be, any right "not to be offended." Pull up your big girl panties and buck the heck up. The world is not made of sugar and spice, and every effort you undertake to make it so is a Very Bad Idea.

Push your controlling ideas too far, and someone will eventually push back. Odds are you really won't enjoy it.

There is no right "not to be offended."

No such right should exist.

No one should agitate for such a right.

End of story.