On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:47 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 2/21/2012 2:45 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/21/2012 12:34 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>> >>>> The idea that consciousness depends on the program a UM executes is >>>> the point of this thought experiment. The idea that consciousness >>>> itself depends on a multiplicity of computational paths going through >>>> the current computational state is what I'm questioning. >>> >>> >>> Yes, I think that's a dubious proposition. Although brains no doubt have >>> some degree of inherent quantum randomness it's clear that intelligent >>> behavior need not depend on that. >>> >>> But I'm not sure your thought experiment proves its point. It's about >>> simulated Mary. Suppose consciousness depended on quantum entanglements >>> of >>> brain structures with the environment (and they must in order for the >>> brain >>> to quasi-classical). Then in your simulation Mary would be a zombie >>> (because your computation is purely classical and you're not simulating >>> the >>> quantum entanglements). But an actual macroscopic device substituted for >>> part of real Mary's brain would be quantum entangled with the environment >>> even if were at the neuron level. So consciousness would, ex hypothesi, >>> still occur - although it might be different in some way. >>> >>> Brent >> >> Why must consciousness depend on quantum entanglements for the brain >> to be quasi-classical? > > > The best theory of how the (quasi) classical world arises from the > underlying quantum world depends on decoherence, i.e. macroscopic things > appear classical because they are entangled with the environment which makes > a few variables, like position and momentum, quasi-classical (c.f. Zurek or > Schlosshauer). If a thing is isolated from the environment it may be able > to exist in a superposition of states, i.e. be non-classical; although > internal degrees of freedom might also produce quasi-classical dynamics.
OK, but that assumes more than is necessary for the argument. I don't think Bruno's theory demands an account of how the classical arises from the quantum. The brain (or its functional equivalent) just implements computations at or above some substitution level we are willing to bet on... whether they are entangled with a level lower than the substitution level is irrelevant. Terren -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
