On Aug 2, 4:04 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> 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.

I'm saying that the closer you get to simulating everything that a
human brain actually is, rather than what we assume is it's
'function', the closer you are going to get to a human equivalent
consciousness. You might be able to cut some corners to achieve
certain attributes but you might also lose other attributes which may
not even be known yet. When I'm talking about getting down to the
cellular, genetic, or molecular level though, I'm talking about
replacing them with alternate physical materials designed by
computers, not abstract machine calculations themselves running on
silicon or some other platform.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to