On 2/16/2012 8:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.

But his teleportation, which is based on transmitting the position of every atom in a human body is far more than required for Bruno's argument which only requires transporting the brain's functional structure. The position of atoms in your body change continuously with no influence on your consciousness.
Hi Brent,

And where is the reference to an article discussing the experiment that shows that this claim is true? Have you considered that our "conscious" experience might be a tiny sliver of what is going on in our heads, which includes all those atoms changing their positions (with how much momentum? we can determine that using thermodynamics and temperature arguments for a statistical average, OK)? So all we need is semi-exact position data and a statistical upper and lower bound of their momenta and we can reproduce a brain? Go ahead, give it a whirl. ;-)

Additionally, in consideration of the "mapping the neural network" idea, how exactly are you going to overcome the fact that the more precisely you measure the positions of every atom in a brain the less information you can gather of their momenta?

Irrelevant. Computation takes place at the classical level, so you only need classical level information.

Umm,OK. What if the "classical" is only the Boolean representable part of the Universe? I am taking this line of reasoning in a different direction not to obfuscate your point but to try to get you to better understand what I am trying to explain. My conjecture is that what we call conscious experience is restricted to being Boolean representable and it is this restriction that is the source of the appearance that our world is classical. We just happen to be somewhat justified in our belief that "all that exists are Integers" because we cannot observe the true nature of reality - which is a constant and total state of superposition. Additionally there are some interesting and obsure reasons that come from linear algebras that disallow for certain operations to occur if the vector spaces of linear algebras is allowed to be of infinite dimensionality. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1zzRX9bnGs&feature=share for more details)

if we are going to implement a simulation of a brain that allows for continuation then we had better be able to map both the position and the momentum data down to the substitution level. The problem is that the substitution level is molecular in scale, we know this because chemical neutransmiters play a vital role in brain behavior.

That doesn't follow. The neurotransmitters are released in quantities such that their diffusion is well modeled classically. In any case their function is to excite the synapse, which could be done electrically by an artificial neuron. There is nothing to indicate that the substitution level must be at the molecule level, much less at the quantum state of molecules. You are no doubt right that any mapping/reproduction would introduce a discontinuity in the stream of consciousness; but this isn't an important objection since a hard blow to the head or some anesthetic does the same thing.

I am only considerign situations where reasonable quantities of "missing time" and other disorientation are allowable in the continuations. I have no unreasonable expectations here, I hope. It is just that we have only started to understand how our 3.5 lb of "grey matter" generates our illusion of consciousness so I don't think that reckless speculations are advisable. Maybe I am being too timid, that quite possible....

The fact that a tiny amount of LSD will totally change your "state of mind" is sufficient proof of this.

The amount isn't that 'tiny' in terms of the number of molecules.

My point is that the level of substitution has to be at the molecular level. Does QM stuff not matter at that level?

You see this is the kind of problems that get completely glossed over in UDA. Many of you balk that I am making a big deal about physics, but without physics we would simply not be here to have this conversation.

As a physicist I'm happy to discuss the physics.

Awesome! I am ready to learn. ;-) I am a student after all, just a bit of a smart ass, but that is just defensive coloring.



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