Oops. I forgot to include the link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0126v1.pdf
-------- Original Message --------
I don't buy it. For one thing memory IS lossy and it's largely reconstruction. I think
their argument only shows that cognition is irreversible in a stat-mech sense. The
implication for saying 'yes' or 'no' to the doctor would be that substituting for a small
part of your brain might scramble your memories/peronality - but it would still be in
principle possible to replace your whole brain by a equivalent Turing machine. But I
question even that step. I think one's consciousness is embedded and to some degree
'integrated' into the world; it's this integration and reference to the world that
provides 'meaning'.
Brent
Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using Algorithmic
Information Theory
Phil Maguire, Philippe Moser, Rebecca Maguire, Virgil Griffith
(Submitted on 1 May 2014)
In this article we review Tononi's (2008) theory of consciousness as integrated
information. We argue that previous formalizations of integrated information (e.g.
Griffith, 2014) depend on information loss. Since lossy integration would necessitate
continuous damage to existing memories, we propose it is more natural to frame
consciousness as a lossless integrative process and provide a formalization of this idea
using algorithmic information theory. We prove that complete lossless integration requires
noncomputable functions. This result implies that if unitary consciousness exists, it
cannot be modelled computationally.
--
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/d/optout.
