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 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.

Reply via email to