On 08 May 2015, at 10:33, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We can use an original biological brain, or an equivalent digital
replacement -- it does not make any significant difference to the
argument. The first point is that in some conscious experience, be
it a dream or anything else, there might be a portion of the
'brain' (in quotes because it can be biological or digital) that is
not activated, so this can be removed without affecting the
conscious experience.
This idea of removing unused parts of brain so only "active"
elements remain, seems problematic to me and not just because of
counterfactual correctness. The ability to do this is implicit in
the assumption that the physics of the brain is classical.
But comp is based on the assumption that consciousness is the result
of classical computation.
Yes, with classical taken from the classical Church Turing Post thesis.
In that sense, quantum computation is still seen as classical, and in
particular we know that the UD, or the sigma_1 arithmetic emulates all
rational approximation of the quantum computations too.
But we have to justify what it is so from the classical. From a paper
by Selesnick and Rawling (+ Golblatt), it is almost just tedious
exercise to see if X1* can, or not emulate a quantum computer, or at
least a quantum bit NOR operation.
With comp, the observable are a modalities, a mode of the way to look
at things. In particular, we use when we want to predict, or make bet,
and this is done by conjuncting <>t to []A so as to guarantie the
existence of a reality. The conjunction with p is stronger, as it is
quasi an asumption of "absolute truth"
By incompleteness, those nuances change the logic, without changing
the truth with which the machine compose in arithmetic.
If that assumption's wrong then comp fails, of course, from step 0 -
no need to worry about the MGA.
UDA would work even if the generalized brain is a quantum computer,
and that the entanglement with the first particles plays a role. The
UD generates all those states, and in the limit the quantum
computations might win the limit. The quantization which are given by
the logic of []p & <>t with p sigma_1 suggest that the quantum might
be the most stable thing in the environment of the average conscious
universal (Löbian) machine (and other Löbian entities).
Physicist should not worry. If physics becomes a theorem of machine
theology, physics will be based on a more solid ground than the usual
extrapolation from what we see or dream.
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/d/optout.
