> Bohr's needlessly complex metaphysics of the quantum-classical split > became unnecessary once I understood the Everett-Wheeler-DeWitt > many-worlds interpretation, in which there is not and never was a > "classical" universe, and measuring instruments are a continuous part of > the wavefunction. There is no "observation", only the appearance of > observation from inside the continuous part of the wavefunction that > happens to be yourself. The wavefunction does not collapse; you split > along with the wavefunction, and each of you thinks the wavefunction has > collapsed. The illusion of complementarity; the illusion of solipsism; > underneath all of it is one continuous equation that does not treat > observation as a special case. > > If one understood qualia one would have no need to invoke complementarity > for them.
Oh, I don't think so. Bohr's split was between two different aspects of the physical universe, so there was no fundamental philosophical dichotomy there. The split between experiential and physical reality is a lot more basic. > If one hasn't understood the subjective in terms of physics, then > one will > need to go on thinking about cognition in terms of phenomena that one > finds to be "subjective" as well as "objective". My claim is that, even once one HAS understood the subjective in terms of physics, it may still be useful to think about cognition in terms of "subjective" phenomena, for many purposes. Because subjectivist explanations may be simpler and more convenient for many purposes, hence more intelligent choices given resource limitations on the part of the thinking mind. > However, in my > experience, learning how to create chunks of cognition requires crossing > the gap between the subjective and the objective with respect to that > problem. While you may be able to make incremental progress in > understanding cognition by using a dual perspective to work on > subproblems, I would predict that any part of your wanted AI design that > you do not yet know how to describe in purely physical terms, > will fail to > work. That's part of what makes AI hard. I think a dual perspective is important for any AI approach that isn't founded on either a) imitating a biological intelligence in detail b) a very thorough mathematical theory of resource-bounded intelligence Lacking either a prototype or some solid math to go on, one needs more guidance than CS, physics, etc. can give .... Drawing guidance from the subjective domain is a viable option, though it must be handled carefully. -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
