On 03 Aug 2011, at 05:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/2/2011 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Unpredictable means that it cannot be predicted. Randomness is
uncaused. A completely deterministic behavior can be unpredictable
and not random. Consider the behaviour of a non-linear system.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net
No, my thought is that quantum coherence accounts for, among
other things, the way that sense data is continuously integrated
into a whole. This leads to a situation that Daniel C. Dennett
calls the "Cartesian Theater". Dennett's proof that it cannot exist
because it generates infinite regress of homunculi inside humonculi
is flawed because such infinities can only occur if each of the
humonculi has access to sufficient computational resources to
generate the rest of them. When we understand that computations
require the utilization of resources and do not occur 'for free' we
see that the entire case against situations that imply the
possibility of infinite regress fails.
Quantum phenomena is NOT all about randomness. Frankly I would
really like to understand how that rubbish of an idea still is
held in seriously thinking people! There is not randomness in QM,
there in only the physical inability to predict exactly when some
quantum event will occur in advance. It is because QM system cannot
be copied that makes it impossible to predict their behavior in
advance, not because of some inherent randomness! Take the infamous
radioactive atom in the Schrodinger Cat box. Is its decay strictly
a "random" phenomena? Not really! QM says not one word about
randomness, it only allows us to calculate the half-life of said
atom and that calculation is as good as is possible given the fact
that we cannot generate a simulation of that atom and its
environment and all of the interactions thereof in a way that we
can get predictions about its behavior in advance.
What is the distinction between random and unpredictable?
A consciousness can no more be copied than the state of a QM system.
That's the point in question. If Tegmark is right, it can.
Tegmark is wrong.
Stephen, do you doubt that consciousness can be implemented by a
digital machine or process?
I doubt that consciousness can be implemented in classical
machines or their logical equivalents. Digital machines maybe, if
they involve quantum entanglement of a certain kind.
Classical machine can emulate quantum digital machine.
True, they cannot most plausibly emulate quantum digital algorithm in
'real time', but this does not change the reasoning leading to the
reversal, given that the classical UD emulates all quantum algorithms.
It would change the local computationalist practice of course, you
might wait for an artificial quantum brain. Meanwhile, you might try
to justify the use of quantum information in the human brain, and as
Brent suggests, to work out a protocol for the bet: it is obviously
very hard. Strictly speaking it is even impossible, because we cannot
know-for-sure what is our substitution level. It is even harder if you
believe in philosophical zombie; because empirical test will become
Anyway, the quantum/classical debate has no impact on the consequence
of "comp". Comp just affirms the existence of a level of digitalness.
Basically, if the 'material human brain" exploit quantum entanglement
(for its information processing, not for the maintenance of its
structure) then the quantum observable reality becomes too multiplied,
and the physical reality has to be described by a multi-multiverse:
the quantum nature would become more geographical. I doubt this, and I
think Tegmark is correct in its conclusion, even if I am not enough
physicist to be entirely convinced by its argumentation.
Concerning photosynthesis, despite Jesse Mazer is right that it
concerns the optimization of one photon path, it is amazing that cells
constructs explicit protein managing that quantum coherence. But some
proteins were needed at the start, and it is natural for nature (if I
can say) to optimize its work, so it might not be more amazing, than,
say, a spider imitating an ant.
The problem with using photosynthesis as an argument of plausibility
for a quantum brain, is that it concerns light, and the brain is grey.
Light, photons, are the easiest object to exploit or for singling out
the quantum nature. Massive dark and hot objects like brain would need
some stretch of imagination to us to detect quantum infomation
processing genuine for its working. But again I insist that all that
talk does not change the formulation of the MB problem in comp, nor
its conceptual solution, except for the fact that the physics can be
quantitatively different according to the choice of level of
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at