On 6/22/2012 8:04 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2012 4:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hameroff is a crackpot. If microtubles were the source of
consciousness my finger would be conscious; microtubles are in
almost all cells.
OK, that solves it, just call him a crackpot and sit back and
wonder why no progress occurs. I think that the sensitivity might be
set too high on your crackpot meter. ;-)
Or yours is set too low. What difference would it make if one found
quantum computation in microtubles?
Not quantum computation per se, phenomena that becomes possible
when one has coherent states available. Quantum computation is one use
of this feature of coherence of entanglement. It allows one to use the
EPR effect to alter the duration of an interaction event such that
measurements of its conjugate are possible. The canonical conjugate to
transition duration is Energy.
and for some reason only in the microtubles in brain cells.
Those particular structures have the necessry topological
properties required to implement a topological quantum computer, which
is just another way of talking about begin able to select a scale
(measure) of the total energy (Hamiltonian) of a system. This is about
"time" uncertainty. It is a hair-brained theory of mine that does not
even rise to crackpot status how this would work, but I am not here to
boost my own theory, I am trying to get a good handle on this COMP stuff.
Would that show that computation done by classical computers
couldn't be conscious?
Not unless we can show that a QM system can pass the ultimate
Turing test and a classical system cannot. What would make this test
ultimate is that it was to be judged by all possible entities that can
believe (ala Bruno's definition) that they themselves are conscious. In
this way we short-circuit observer bias.
Would it show that any computation by microtubles was conscious.
Yes. It would offer justification of the idea of panpsychism (but
not proof!).
Has Hashameroff et al show how microtubles in cells could compute
something?
Yes. Watch the linked talk; it is described.
Do you suppose that high level intelligence can exist without
consciouness?
No, not one that can pass my version of a Turing test.
Do you suppose computers (without quantum computation) cannot
achieve high level intelligence?
No.
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
