On 21 August 2014 03:13, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 Aug 2014, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: > > On 8/18/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote: > > Yes, I still haven't had a satisfactory answer on what that would mean for > a computation - i.e. what physically differentiates identical computations > with different counterfactual add-ons that don't actually get used. > > It's confusing because comp assumes computation is done by classical > physics, but real physics is QM. > > Comp assumes classical arithmetic, with classical in the usual > boolean/platonist sense. But QM assumes it too, and comp assumes no more > (except for the act of faith "yes doctor", at the meta-level). >
Surely comp assumes, to start with, that consciousness arises from a classical computation in the brain? This is where Brent's objections come in, if it isn't a classical computation but a quantum one, then comp fails at step 0 - unless a QC can be emulated by a CC, of course. Which I think maybe it can? -- 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.
