On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jason Resch >>> >>> IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, >>> but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. >>> It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's >>> nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and >>> transistors. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> Please leave magic out of this, as "any sufficiently advanced >>> technology is indistinguishable from >>> magic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws>". >>> The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much >>> different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. >>> >>> Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain >>> special? >>> >> >> I agree with what you say above. >> >> >>> I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both >>> synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely >>> classical physical methods. >>> >> >> What leads you to suspect this? >> >> >> The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed >> here<http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html>. >> >> > > > If I understand your point correctly, the phenomenon that needs > explanation is the apparent simultaneity of various sensations which tests > have indicated take varying amounts of time to process. Is this right? > > > Hi Jason, > > Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is effectively > simultaneous. > > Perhaps this is the content of a certain computational state? > > > If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this > problem. If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to > process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant > communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the > processing to complete. > > > Right, but all are put together so that the audio and the video are > always in synch. Problems with this mechanism are conjectured to cause > schizophrenia. David Eagleman is looking into this kind of stuff but isn't > considering the quantum possibility. > > > > There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up. We have a > fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks > that. Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they > go unnoticed. Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly > changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn > our heads. Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but > it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw. So I do not find > it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, > making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same > time when it was not. > > > Exactly. The point is that all sensations are given as synchronized > with each other even though that cannot happen. Imagine a loom that used > many different threads each of which takes different speed processes to be > generated. It is as if they could be speed up or slowed down such that the > overall tapestry is always flowing at a single steady pace. Think of the > lag effect that we see with our smartphones. Is there something like a > "waiting for sender to respond" in our brains? > Maybe the qualia isn't related to the processing of the sense information, but in sharing the results with the other parts of the brain (see modularity of mind http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/ ). Then by delaying the output by the appropriate amount, or by matching results at a higher level integration, the synchronization can be made. I think modularity of mind explains well many aspects of consciousness, and also how anesthesia works. > > > > Quantum entanglement allows for a variable "window of duration" via the >> EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the >> state of the system. All of the "parts" of it operate simultaneously, not >> matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in >> space time. This is the "spooky action at a distance" that has upset the >> classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can >> derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum >> pseudo-telepathy >> effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy> >> . >> >> > I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case. EPR doesn't communicate > any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance > unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement > (CI). Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity, > couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per second of nerve > impulses? > > > No copyable information is involved. The literature of quantum games > (where the pseudo-telepathy effect shows up) explain this. > > > > If one runs an emulation of a mind, it doesn't matter if it takes 500 > years to finish the computation, or 500 nanoseconds. The perceived first > person experience of the mind will not differ. So the difference between > delays in processing time and resulting perceptions may be a red herring in > the search for theories of the brain's operation. > > > yes, but this argument your making only applies if we are only > considering a single emulation. Try that argument when one has to consider > many emulations of mind communicating with each other. The computational > picture is missing the entire point that I am trying to make when it > ignores the necessities of interactions between many minds. > > That we can perceive an instantaneous moment (despite that the processing of the information is spread out over time) should be no more surprising than the fact that the processing of information is spread out through space. All information processed by the brain does not come to a single physical point where it is felt, so given the symmetry of space and time, there is no reason the information has to be processed at the same instant in time to create an experience that is singular. > > > >> >> >> >>> Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content >>> thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible >>> abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and >>> report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! >>> >> >> I agree. >> >> Jason >> -- >> >> >> The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously >> generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and >> what we are conscious of is that model. >> > > I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating > machine. > > > Me too! > > > > >> Does a "machine" made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one >> made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... >> > > No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. > > > So why not aqssume that they can and figure out what can be predicted > from the assumption. ;-) > Okay. Jason -- 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.
