On 6/23/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote:
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.
Hi Brent,
Each and every instance of an interaction is an instance of
consciousness for a pan-psychic! Having to account for that formidable
field is quite a challenge, no?
Decoherence is also produced by the non-locality of interactions.
"also"? That word does not apply,. Decoherence involves all
possible interactions, otherwise the density matrix representation would
not aplpy!
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).
You are missing the point. It is about differences between two that
make a difference to a third. You need to think for a moment about what
exactly it means for an observer to be isolated. If isolation is not
possible then a clear notion of differences between systems is not possible.
The only relevance I can see this might have to consciousness is in
the question of counterfactuals (Bruno's 323 example).
Exactly. That is where it matters.
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.
"Particular" to a specific set of brains cells with unique
position, momenta, scattering duration, spin directions, etc. The
complete set of observables that exactly define the state of those brain
cells is not subject to being copied or cloned.
By Hameroff's standard any complex molecular system has the
properties necessary to implement a quantum computer.
No, It requires several things that you are not mentioning. You
seems to have not been paying attention to his talk.
The question is whether it does so.
Why exactly are you skeptical that it happens? It worries me that
you are very interested in the explanation that puts you in the
philosophical position of not having any responsibility for your
actions. How wonderfully convenient for you!
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.
These two sentences are loaded up with illdefined concepts. What
exactly is a "perception" and " information" and "control" and "compute"
and " dynamic evolution" and "ubiquitous property". All of these words
have multiple meanings...
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 agree!
I watched the link - you owe me 45min.
What compensation do you require for knowledge acquisition?
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.
Consciousness, yes. The ability to communicate true statements that
such is the case is a completely different story. Communication is a
higher hurdle than existence.
--
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.
