On 2/2/2013 2:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of
The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a
universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a
because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent
single universe requires magical thinking.
I don't think that's true. There are ways of interpreting QM that are
and not "magical". It's just that they require accepting that somethings
It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity.
But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural
Can you describe the mechanism by which that happens?
It's not mechanical, so I doubt that there is a 'mechanistic' explanation. It's similar
to Newton's explanation of gravity. It was objected at the time that he gave no
explanation of how gravity pushed and pulled on planets. But when you think carefully
about them you realize that scientific theories are mathematical models that predict
things, but in general they don't have 'mechanisms' that fit our anthropomorphic idea of
push and pull, cause and effect. What is the 'mechanism' of a projection operator in
quantum mechanics, or of the Schrodinger equation. It may well be that consciousness is
just how a certain kind of physical information processing 'feels' from the inside.
I'm willing to accept a toy model and overlook a lot of things, just give me
What I can give is empirical evidence and operational defintions. An operational
definition of consciousness is responding to accumulated information in ways that are
intelligent/purposeful but unpredictable.
and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical
processing of information.
True, but that's a different matter. Consciousness is not a requirement for
How do you know that? I think it likely that consciousness, of some kind, always
accompanies intelligence of a sufficiently high level - they kind we think of as learning
from experience and being able to set multi-level goals.
Or if it is it must come through some mysterious means, because we know how to build
intelligent machines but we don't know how to build conscious ones.
How do you know that? How would you know that a robot you built with intelligent behavior
was not conscious?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.