On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King"<[email protected]> wrote:
The point is that there is a point where the best possible
model or
computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The fact
that
it is impossible to create a model of a weather system that can predict
*all* of its future behavior does not equal to a proof that one cannot
create an approximately accurate model of a weather system. One has to
trade off accuracy for feasibility.
I agree that's true, and by that definition, we can certainly make
cybernetic systems which can approximate the appearance of
consciousness in the eyes of most human clients of those systems for
the scope of their intended purpose. To get beyond that level of
accuracy, you may need to get down to the cellular, genetic, or
molecular level, in which case it's not really worth the trouble of re-
inventing life just to get a friendlier sounding voicemail.
Craig
So now you agree that a simulation of a brain at the molecular level
would suffice to produce consciousness (although of course it would be
much more efficient to actually use molecules instead of
computationally simulating them). This would be a good reason to say
'no' to the doctor, since even though you could simulate the molecules
and their interactions, quantum randomness would prevent you from
controlling their interactions with the molecules in the rest of your
brain. Bruno's argument would still go through, but the 'doctor'
might have to replace not only your brain but a big chunk of the
universe with which it interacts. However, most people who have read
Tegmark's paper understand that the brain must be essentially
classical as a computer and so a simulation, even one of molecules,
could be quasi-classical, i.e. local.
Brent
Hi Brent,
I wonder if you would make a friendly wager with me about the
veracity of Tegmark's claims about the brain being "essentially
classical"? I bet $1 US (payable via Paypal) that he is dead wrong *and*
that the proof that the brain actively involves quantum phenomena that
are discounted by Tegmark will emerge within two years. We already have
evidence that the photosynthesis process in plants involves quantum
coherence, there is an experiment being designed now to test the
coherence in the retina of the human eye.
http://www.ghuth.com/2010/02/03/another-finding-of-quantum-coherence-in-a-photosynthetic-biological-system/
http://www.ghuth.com/2011/04/24/quantum-coherence-and-the-retina/
As to your post here. Craig's point is that the simulated brain,
even if simulated down to the molecular level, will only be a simulation
and 'think simulate thoughts'. If said simulated brain has a
consiousness it will be its own, not that some other brain. A
consciousness can no more be copied than the state of a QM system.
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
