On 8/20/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 August 2014 03:13, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[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?
Yes, it can - although very slowly. My objection is based on the wholistic entanglement that would implied by quantum aspects of brain consciousness. It seems that the counterfactuals to be considered in step 8 would expand to essentially include the whole world so you would end up showing that the consciousness was instantiated by a simulation *relative to* a simulated world. This doesn't seem to be the absurdity needed to reject the premise - in fact it seems like what you might expect.
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/d/optout.
