On 12/20/2013 1:10 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi John,
Questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:47 PM, John Clark <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum
state.
It's not so clear though how that is related to consciousness and
identity.
I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise, if
a change
in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about 10^44 times a
second; and
a consciousness that never changes is not a consciousness.
Do you see consciousness as a thing or as a process?
> Our brain is *mostly* classical.
The real question is about our minds, and despite what some like Roger
Penrose say I
think our minds are probably entirely classical.
Why? If minds are classical then they are easy to copy, in principle. Why then are there
not lots of John Clarks running around?
?? Didn't you notice the tension between "easy" and "in principle"? It's possible, in
principle, to copy a Boeing 777, because it's a classical object. But if it were easy
Boeing would be out of business.
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
