[Jyotiranjanbehera (OP)]

I keep on thinking about it. If it is possible at all we could possibly write two different answers using our two hands on the answer paper during the exam.

[ProjectSailor]

Wouldn't work for me, I often write down something that I am talking of rather than what I am thinking of writing.

Think you are doing a long set of numbers on a calculator, and writing down each result. You can do this whilst holding a conversation with someone else, but if they started saying random numbers you would struggle to write down what you were going to write down over the numbers that they say.

So whilst it is possible to do 2 jobs a a time, say holding a conversation and writing a report, I doubt it is possible to manipulate each hand independently on different thought process. Manipulating your hands to do one thing and your mouth to do another is a recognized ability of most people.. we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Bored chemist]

Why have a vote when the truth is documented?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20697278

[yor_on]

I don't know. I think it also may be a case of 'indeterminacy'. As if there was a infinite amount of 'information' resting behind yout consciousness. Not the same as having two 'simultaneous' thoughts though, but 'dipping inside indeterminacy' might allow you to lift forward a 'original' that you somehow sought after, it's my experience anyway.

[yor_on]

What one has to understand there is that the principle should be the same as with a quantum computer. The question has to be stringent and clear. that means that the more you know, the better those answers will become. Fuzzy questions will give fuzzy answers, sort of
=

In one word...  Education

[Bored chemist]

I don't know. I think it also may be a case of 'indeterminacy'. As if there was a infinite amount of 'information' resting behind yout consciousness. Not the same as having two 'simultaneous' thoughts though, but 'dipping inside indeterminacy' might allow you to lift forward a 'original' that you somehow sought after, it's my experience anyway.

Did you notice that your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the question?

[zx16]

What one has to understand there is that the principle should be the same as with a quantum computer. The question has to be stringent and clear. that means that the more you know, the better those answers will become. Fuzzy questions will give fuzzy answers, sort of

How would a big quantum computer ever give a "stringent and clear" answer to a question?

I mean suppose you asked it a precise question, like: "What's 2+2".  Wouldn't it be bound by QM to give a fuzzy answer, like: "About 4"?

[yor_on]

Could be BC 
Then again, to me it has to do with indeterminacy.

I don't remember me having two thoughts simultaneously, although being of two minds do happen now and then.

[yor_on]

Well zx16. the more complicated the question, the greater ones uncertainty of the answer being correct, you have to know how to formulate the question without ambiguity as I read it. Had a really nice link a couple of years ago to it, but that was then, not now.
=

Maybe this can give an idea?

"The concept of finding a good configuration of binary variables (switches) in this way lies at the heart of many problems that are encountered in everyday applications. A few are shown in figure below. Even the concept of scientific discovery itself is an optimization problem (you are trying to find the best 'configuration' of terms contributing to a scientific equation which match real world observations)."

http://www.dwavesys.com/tutorials/background-reading-series/quantum-computing-primer

===

And no, remember Feynman Paths zx16?  That's how I think of it any way, as if a quantum computer was supposed to 'take' all of those paths 'simultaneously' (another great example of where something are supposed to do 'several things' simultaneously, but not in a classical way) so arriving to the only way left, as the other takes themselves out. The fuzziness disappear, depending on the quality of the question.
==

what I really wonder about is if there couldn't be a theorem defining it? The relation between ones try for a stringent unambiguous question, relative a answers quality? Maybe also defining limits to it? Maybe there is and I've missed it though.

[Semaphore]

Of course you can. You do it all the time. If you drive a car you can hold a conversation or plan your day or talk on the phone (hands-free of course) or listen to the stereo. If you're on a telecon you can work on a spreadsheet at the same time. I often play a video game and watch a sports event at the same time. Or enjoy a drink and think about sex....

[yor_on]

I don't consider that the same. You can do stuff like write a letter at the same time you sing a song, but that doesn't mean you are having, or using, two simultaneous thoughts.

[Semaphore]

You're wrong, otherwise you'd crash your car every time you answered the phone. Why don't you pay attention?

[yor_on]

Don't think so

Maybe you can prove it though?
That would be interesting.
=

Here, have a go at this.
Can We Control Our Thoughts? 

"We are aware of a tiny fraction of the thinking that goes on in our minds, and we can control only a tiny part of our conscious thoughts. The vast majority of our thinking efforts goes on subconsciously."

What I think of as 'Indeterminism', more resembling 'superpositions' of feelings, thoughts, resemblances etc, than any kind of sorted thoughts that I then presumably 'think' simultaneously.

Then "Thus, a batter can decide to swing at a ball that comes into the strike zone and can delineate the boundaries of that zone. But when the ball comes sailing through, unconscious mental functions take over. The actions required to send him to first base are too complex and unfold too quickly for our comparatively slow conscious control to handle."


Illustrates for example your example of driving that car. You don't 'think' about it unless something demands you to do so, and that's probably only happening after the fact. Those conscious thoughts we have are just the tip of the iceberg to me, most of it being submerged inside the subconscious. doesn't mean that it doesn't ponder too, but not in the way we do consciously, aka 'think'. It's like expecting a centipede to 'think' about in which order it moves its feet

Your turn mate.

[zx16]

I doubt it is possible to manipulate each hand independently on different thought process. Manipulating your hands to do one thing and your mouth to do another is a recognized ability of most people.. we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

That's undoubtedly true. I can say one thing with my mouth, and at the same time write a different thing with my hand.

But I can't make my hands write two different things at the same time.  Is this because the hands are both controlled by the same area of the brain, which won't allow two conflicting hand-instructions.

Whereas the mouth is controlled by a different part of the brain.  So there's no conflict with hand-instructions.

[Bored chemist]

The experiment was done. The result is in that video.
What is there to discuss?

[RD]

Two brains can do two things at the same time ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8

[zx16]

That's a very interesting video RD.

But doesn't it only apply to people whose brains have been cut into two halves. My brain is still in one piece, so I don't see any relevance.

I mean, mightn't you as well argue that people who've had one leg cut off, keep falling over, and that proves something about the instability of the human walking posture?

[RD]

But doesn't it only apply to people whose brains have been cut into two halves.
My brain is still in one piece, so I don't see any relevance.

The relevance is we have two brains ...

After the right and left brain are separated, each hemisphere will have its own separate perception, concepts, and impulses to act. Having two "brains" in one body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Dual-core processor.

One of which can be dispensed with ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy

[yor_on]

As far as I understand that's not true RD. The brain uses both hemispheres, and much of the development gets defined at a early age. That's one reason why it's easier for the brain to compensate for damage to it when one's young, and it will use what ever it has access to. This 'left' and 'right' side is an idea that's been here since the fifties as a guess, at that time when people thought you could 'heal' certain types of 'mental sickness' by lobotomizing. Left Brain vs. Right: It's a Myth, Research Finds 

Sort of scary that we could believe in lobotomies, and let it be done on people that couldn't defend themselves.
=

Well RD, actually you might to be able to argue that we can be without one hemisphere I'm sort of supporting that thesis in what I write. But I don't expect it to be a good thing.

[yor_on]

And BC, that you can do two things, doesn't state that they are done 'simultaneously'. Two conscious chains of thoughts at the same time is a overkill. A computer can do a lot of stuff that to us seem as 'simultaneous' but the output is still serial.