On 6/23/2012 1:53 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2012 10:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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?
Then your problem is to account for non-consciousness.
How is that a problem? The panpsychist stance might allow too much,
but at least one can explain the failures to pass the Turing test as
failures to communicate the ability that is inherent.
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!
?? You can use a density matrix representation of any system, isolated
or not.
Sure, but we have to distinguish the real world stuff that we are
trying to represent from the purely abstract stuff. Explanations, models
and theories that we might be able to consistently argue to not make
contanct with the physical world are exactly those explanations, models
and theories that are not falsifiable, but at some point we have to make
judgement calls as to what is actually is unphysical and what it just
outside of our technical means to test. I am trying to get at the
implications of decoherence.
AFAIK, decoherence does not make the world classical, it merely
hides all the "spooky" stuff of a world that is actually quantum mechanical.
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.
A non-sequitur. I specifically referred to "distributed into the
environment". I didn't say anything about isolation. You seem to be
responding to voices in your head.
LOL, could be!
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.
Except he did nothing to see whether or not brain cells have any of
those specificities different from other cells.
The complete set of observables that exactly define the state of
those brain cells is not subject to being copied or cloned.
You can't clone any quantum state - nothing to do with brain cells.
Where are the cells and there are the states of those cells. What
is your measure of the difference between them? What I am trying to get
you to see here is that the world is simply *not* classical and neither
is anything in it. The point is whether or not entanglement effects can
be or cannot be used.
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!
You haven't been paying attention. I'm the one who defended
compatibilist free will.
OK. My apologies.
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 ill defined 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...
They are better defined than "topological quantum computer".
The concept of topological quantum computer has a definition that
is good enough to not be ambiguous, but I concede the point.
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?
Watching 45min of video of my choice.
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.
And your evidence for that is...
Brent
The Crackpot Index by John Baez
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you
worked on your own.)
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to your past theories.
--
:-) Nice. So one must be on guard to never say the "wrong thing"
and thus never be a crackpot. Easy.
--
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.
