>Proposing that it's not entanglement means proposing a new phyical process by which that information can contribute to a single, non-local value, which people

>Proposing that it's not entanglement means proposing a new phyical process by which that information can contribute to a single, non-local value, which people researching the brain haven't even taken a stab at. But you're already proposing something so fundamentally different to anything that exists, namely consciousness arising from patterns. There is no reasonable reference point to make any assumptions about such a thing. >they seem to blithely ignore the physics/informatiom theory implications of that. We can't make physical information assumptions about something which as far as we know may not even be physical. There is no obvious space-time location that consciousness exists at such that it needs to gather information to that point.