>From: Christopher_L._Turner@hud.gov
>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 14:08:32 EST

My turn! -- if all you wonderful folks will allow me.   My name is
Chris Turner and I'm not going to say much about my past, because
there's not much to say (I'm sure you're very disappointed to hear
that :).  I have five sisters, and a BS in mathematics/info systems
from Georgia State U.  I am currently a LAN/WAN administrator.  I'm
not and never have been married (although I'm a darn good lookin'
36 y.o. guy, all you eligible bachelorettes out there), and my life, at
least the part that I dare to mention publicly, is pretty much a
long drink of water.   I don't have any impressive 'formal' degrees or
publications to my credit (at least not yet), so I'll have to
present my credentials in another form  -- not to impress or "WOW"
you in any manner, but to define (as best I can) my 'strengths' and
'weaknesses' in order to help make this exchange a mutually
'profitable' one.
     I consider myself to be somewhat 'talented' in the area of
"philosophical insight", which I had better hurry up and
demonstrate to you before you look for something more interesting
to read.  I hope to 'marry' (ouch) my self-recongnized 'talent'
with those of others more skilled and talented in the areas of
conventional/ accepted formalisms for purposes of presentation and
communication.  HERE GOES!!:

Two items:

1)   Old news, but significant, I think.  When I was about thirteen
and had never heard of Descartes and "Cognito ergo sum", I was
contemplating "the nature of being" one day (as was my favorite
pastime at that age - and still is:) when I came up with:  "There
must be a 'me' for me to sit here and think about (even if "I" am
'nothing more' than "my" thought/concept of "me")!"  I quickly
shortened it to "There must be a me for me to think about" which
sounded more concise (and MUCH later concluded that it is the only
'certain' knowledge and therefore the most sound basis for any
further philosophical conclusions).   I thought that was pretty
good for a "spaced-out" kid.   (Again.. not even pretending to try
to make your jaw drop, just want to be "taken seriously", and
hopefully show that I may have some skill(?) to offer.)

2)     NEW, and I believe, somewhat more ORIGINAL: I will "prove"
that 'consciousness', as (I ASSUME most of) we humans 'experience'
it, is "clearly" a manifestation of the 'quantum' "non-locality"
phenomenon -- whereby "instantaneous" "transmission /
'communication ' of 'signals' across ANY expanse of intervening
space (e.g. "collapse of the wave function") is realized, thereby
'apparently' "violating" the 186,000 mile per second (light speed)
limit for transmission/propagation of "matter" signals through
space as required by the general theory of relativity (I know it
hurts, but please bear with me just a minute longer :).
     For perspective, a "classical" machine such as a computer is
not a "single" 'integrated' "conscious"ness, but rather a
collection of individual interacting 'parts' (spur of the moment
:), because it is DESIGNED as a "classical" device to operate
according to 'cause and effect' chains, i.e. 'local' action -
reaction events (which, I presume, is the only way we humans
currently know how to design a "machine").
     The 'functioning' living human brain is a "quantum" 'device'
because it 'exploits' the 'non-local' property of the 'quantum
wave' aspect of matter to 'produce' individual human
"consciousness"es.   How do I "know" this?   Because various modern
(infra-red, etc.) imaging devices clearly show that spacially
separated PHYSICAL regions/parts of the brain become 'causally'
("classically") "activated"/"excited" over time via electro-
chemical signals traversing its myriad branching neuronal pathways
in response to sensory stimuli, until SEVERAL such spatially
separated regions are SIMULTANEOUSLY active.  (Nothing new so far.) 
It is also clear to me that MY (and I assume yours too)
"consciousness" 'encompasses' a REGION/AREA of SPACE (as opposed to
a single mathematical 'point') at 'each' INSTANT.  If I presume a
relationship between the various simultaneously active regions of
my brain at a particular 'INSTANT' and my 'INTEGRATED'/
'COORDINATED' (i.e. "SELF"-) "consciousness" of my  physical body
and of the SPACE around it at that same 'INSTANT' (which the
overwhelming body of 'scientific' evidence compels me to do), then
I must conclude that this INTEGRATED SPACE(TIME) ENCOMPASSING
"IMAGE" that is my "consciousness"/ "awareness" at each instant is
the '"self"-regulating(this is fun)' 'EFFECT' of the 'COORDINATED'
and 'INSTANTANEOUS' communication 'among/throughout' these
simultaneously active BUT SPACIALLY SEPARATE regions/parts of my
brain.  The 'quantum effect' is the only "instantaneous", non-
local-influence phenomenon that we are (currently) aware of. 
Therefore, human consciousness "clearly" 'must be' an example and
manifestation of the "quantum jump" phenomenon, and the human brain
is clearly a "quantum" machine/device.  (I've developed this model
quite extensively and would love to share and further refine it
with anyone who's interested.)

This conclusion suggests (to my mind) all kinds of 'magnificent'
philosophical, and physical, implications which I am scarcely equipped to
fully and satisfactorily explore and communicate.  For one of the physical
examples:  Since 'consciousness' is apparently an "un-collapsed quantum wave"
in some sense, the brain is apparently a 'designer' and 'generator' of
quantum 'waveforms'.  It might be that the brain is also a
transmitter/receiver of such waveforms, in that a "similarly tuned" brain may
"resonate" in response to a q-waveform generated by another brain, analogous
to the way the strings of one violin vibrate in response to the bowed strings
of another similarly tuned violin (you know, the way Ella shatters the wine
glass) -- I.E. 'RESONANCE' IS ANOTHER WAVE PROPERTY.  (Of course if we
weren't aware of such a possibility we might assume and dismiss any such
'resonance' image as strictly 'internal', i.e. 'local'ly generated, etc.,
etc.) Just an idea that may be worth exploring.

     Another, and believe it or not 'related', interest of mine is
the development of a 'science of intellect self-design and
construction' which I see GS as integral to. 

And the philosophical context that I view all of these "wild" ideas from
within is THE (or at least certainly A) logical extrapolation (which I will
spare you here) of the COGNITO ERGO SUM (yeah, he said it first) "certainty
principle" (mine..:).. and I promise not to keep saying that), which is that
"If an 'omniscient' 'God' exists," then the 'physical' Universe 'must be'
"God's" Brain = Mind/Consciousness-Mechanism, and its 'task'/'endeavor' is
to 'design' and construct itself!  We and our soon-to-be "integrated",
"intelligent", and "self-aware" society are an 'expression' and 'extension'
(part) of this process.  And this wonderful "Internet", my dear friends, is
'clearly' this fledgling "integrated intelligent society-organism (an
intelligent organism composed of intelligent organisms -- imagine that)" of
ours's developing 'central nervous system / neuronal network'! "The medium IS
the message!" Ain't it Grand?!  (If not Grandiose -- sorry, I get a little
carried away sometimes :)

I would like to 'utilize' (I.E. SHAMELESSLY EXPLOIT:) the Internet as a
"think tank" to 'tap into' and 'integrate with' more intelligent minds than
my own IDEALLY for the purpose of producing and sharing in a PRODUCT, which
is nothing less ambitious than a 'viable' 'formula for world peace', for
which I 'think' I have most of the basic ingredients and framework.  And if
you even vaguely 'get' what I've said so far, or any of my previous
'contributions', and you're even slightly interested in such ideas, you're a
qualified and welcomed collaborator.  And meanwhile, I'll try to develop my
GS 'savy' so that we can all 'speak the same language'.    I think there is
no more 'logical'/'appropriate' or "worthy" concept OR 'group' to take the
lead in a 'genuine' FWP development enterprise than GS and its self-reflexive
(sp) star-children (you know, supernova's and all that -- sorry).  Hey, I
think it'd be fun!  Any takers?   So anyway -- that's my cardboard sign, and
it's somebody else's turn.
Wonderful to meet you :)
Chris Turner, 10:22pm, 7-13-95