On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 09:57:58AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
First, I sent this in error to the CP list...it was intended for
another list. (My mailer has command completion and I am so used to
typing cy in the To: box and having it expand to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that I sent it to CP by accident. As
--
James A. Donald:
It is unsurprising that with current computing power we
should be unable to emulate an ant, but inability to
emulate a nematode is troubling.
Eugen Leitl
The crunch power is there. We're lacking a good enough model,
and empirical data to feed that nonexisting
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
On the other hand, our inability to emulate a nematode, or the
a portion of the retina, is grounds for concern. This does not
indicate that the mystery is QM, but does suggest that there is
some mystery -- some special quality either of
--
On 23 Dec 2002 at 21:23, Tim May wrote:
Inasmuch as we cannot even build a machine which even
remotely resembles a bat, or even an ant, the inability to
simulate/understand/be a bat is not surprising. There is
no mapping currently feasable between my internal states and
a bat's.
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
On the other hand, our inability to emulate a nematode, or the
a portion of the retina, is grounds for concern. This does not
indicate that the mystery is QM, but does suggest that there is
some mystery -- some special quality either of individual
On Monday, December 23, 2002, at 08:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes. I strongly suspect that minds are quantum mechanical. My
arguement is at this point very hand waving, but it seems to me that if
minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to
imagine,
i.e.
