On 6/22/2012 6:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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.
I still don't see the relevance to consciousness. EPR is just an example of the
non-locality of interactions. Decoherence is also produced by the non-locality of
interactions. The phase information is distributed into the environment - that doesn't
make it consciousness or even computation (except in the metaphorical sense that physics
can be thought of as computing itself). The only relevance I can see this might have to
consciousness is in the question of counterfactuals (Bruno's 323 example).
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,
Except they are not particular to brain cells. By Hameroff's standard any complex
molecular system has the properties necessary to implement a quantum computer. The
question is whether it does so. Does it receive information from perception and use that
information in controlling action. That it can 'compute' it's own dynamic evolution is a
ubiquitous property.
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.
No, he only speculated that they could have patterns of collective activity -
'computation' in the generic sense of evolving according to a Hamiltonian. As an
anesthesiologist he should be explaining how anesthesia stops these patterns from evolving
in microtubules.
I watched the link - you owe me 45min.
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.
Then you must believe that consciousness can be realized by classical computers.
Brent
--
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.
