Yes photosynthesis uses, I read, quantum processing in the tropics. Birds are alleged to navigate that way, I seem to remember reading.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable > for quantum computation, because of the temperature being "to high" for qc > to occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum > effects which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers > involving the quantum and plants)? > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 10:23 am > Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness > > > On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 > >> > >> Consciousness as a State of Matter > >> > >> Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Folk, > >> > >> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! > >> > >> I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s > >> grapplings with > >> consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so > >> pervasive > >> and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way > >> from > >> physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we > >> can see it > >> for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called > >> “science of consciousness” is > >> > >> · the “the science of the scientific observer” > >> > >> · trying to explain observing with observations > >> > >> · trying to explain experience with experiences > >> > >> · trying to explain how scientists do science. > >> > >> · a science of scientific behaviour. > >> > >> · Descriptive and never explanatory. > >> > >> · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws > >> of nature’ > >> contacts the actual underlying reality... > >> > >> · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never > >> ever ever > >> questioning that. > >> > >> · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of > >> anything. > >> > >> · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of > >> subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. > >> > >> · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with > >> objectified phenomena. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presupposition....now > >> gives us > >> exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state > >> of > >> matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is > >> admit we > >> are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, > >> getting a > >> view from the point of view of being a bit of it...... grrrrrrrr. > >> The big > >> mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of > >> science, > >> ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as > >> opposed > >> to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking > >> like’. The > >> next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the > >> universe > >> is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to > >> scientifically observe in the first place. > >> > >> > >> > >> These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even > >> lifted a > >> finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the > >> problem > >> is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science > >> itself_ > >> ... _us_. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a > >> book on > >> this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them > >> out. > >> > >> > >> > >> Happy new year! > > > > I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am > > conscious, > > I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think > that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a > person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest > yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your > body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do > change our "lump of dumb matter" every n number of years. > > > > > > so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in > > a special way might not also be conscious. > > But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to > consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, > memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) > owning your body. > If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also > believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with > a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify > ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows > the limit of this identification, imo. > Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are > only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers > percepts. > > > > > What is it about that idea > > that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? > > It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. > > Bruno > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
