On 2/2/2013 2:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
    Hi Bruno,

    On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
    <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

        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 
with a
    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 
happen and
    some don't.

    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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to