From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Mazer Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2011 3:26 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Simulated Brains
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 8/2/2011 10:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I'm just interested in how we would decide who won? If there is some test you can suggest or some theoretical development you anticipate it would be very relevant to the question of the philosophical zombie. Whatever, this conversation is going nowhere. I am over it. You want your dollar? Will that make you happy? No. I'm not unhappy, just curious. Brent It might help if Stephen would explain what scale of quantum coherence he's predicting. The new possible explanation for photosynthesis only involved quantum coherence within a *single* molecule, not quantum coherence spread across the entire chloroplast (organelle where photosynthesis occurs), let alone across an entire cell or multiple cells in a plant. It seems that most people who think quantum coherence has something to do with how the brain does its job are talking about large-scale quantum coherence across brain regions with a macroscopic separation (Tegmark's article, which reflects the opinion of nearly all physicists, is that this sort of thing is totally unrealistic due to decoherence), is this specifically what you're predicting Stephen? Or would you count it as a "win" if quantum coherence were only found to play a useful role within individual neurotransmitter molecules or similarly small collections of atoms? Jesse Tegmark could be 100% right about what macroscopic brain (electromagnetic) 'coherence' looks like when you use a brain to observe it. It might 'look decohered', however this 3rd person view might be the wrong way to think of coherence from a first person perspective. I can imagine that my own personal EM field system might be behaving in ways that eliminate the bits that make my brain look decohered to a 3rd person. (a) 1st person coherence (my brain with what its looking at) and (b) 3rd person coherence (the way my brain looks like when (a) is happening in it)... could be different. (b) decoherence does not necessarily mean (a) is also decohered. For the electrical engineers... remember 'common mode rejection'? 2 input pins can have all manner of noise on them... but because both pins have the same noise, the device receiving the signals can subtract the two and ...voila ... pure signal. The pins look noisy as hell, but there's still coherence from the persoective of one pin to another. For mechanical engineers... think of vibration resistance in old-style hard drive read heads. If the platter and the read head vibrate/get shocked the same amount, then there's no read error. If you 'sit on the read head' there's no apparent vibration/shock. Common-mode vibration resistance. Same thing. The very act of first person-ness (1st person frame) in X might be performing the same function ... removing the decoherence apparent to an external observer of X, while remaining decohered in the frame of reference of the 3rd person observer. Tegmark could be right, but the claim that quantum coherence is not occurring in the first person might not be a valid implication of that observation. Good observation, wrong inference. Q. If I am high temp and 'thermally noisy' down deep, and everything else is 'thermally noisy down deep' in exactly the same way, then how does that impact from a 1st person perspective? Isn't this just like common-mode rejection...'or 'virtual coherence'? Colin Hales -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.