On 01 Jun 2017, at 19:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other
one :)
What if the substitution level turns out to be at a higher level
than
quantum? E.g. at the level of the neurons and their connections
and
activations levels?
That would enlarge the uncertainty spectrum on the realities we can
access
without losing anything subjective. It would help the doctor to
build the
artificial brain. It could also make more difficult to justify the
smallness
of Planck constant, and to explain why the quantum seems more
obviously
present in the micro-states, Decoherence would be easier to fight
against,
and quantum computing would be more easy to be realized. This
lakes me
think
that the quantum level is boundary of the substitution level.
This appears to be a testable hypothesis.
I know that Penrose proposed a theory on the quantum effects inside
neurons that turned ou to be problematic because of decoherence, but
of course that doesn't mean that quantum mechanics might not play a
much more holistic role in brain activity.
I remember a presentation perhaps a decade ago by a neuroscientist
at
an artificial life conference, where she showed that neurons can
operate in a chaotic regime. In fact, she claimed at the time that
we
did not have the computational power to accurately simulate a single
neuron. To me, this suggests that the activation of neurons might be
governed by much subtler phenomena than simple threshold effects.
Perhaps it is conceivable that small scale quantum effects could
propagate to the macro level of the brain.
On the other hand, it is also true that artificial neural network
models with just simple threshold neurons are already Turing
complete,
provided that one allows for recurrence. This proves nothing, but
purely when worrying about neuroscince / artificial intelligence,
I am
a it weary of going for more complicated models when there is
still so
much to explore in the simpler ones... I say this while completely
disregarding the hard problem. I have perhaps the unusual intuition
that intelligence and consciousness are quite different issues --
I share that intuition when intelligence is used in the sense of
competence.
Ok. When I say intelligence I am thinking about systems that can
increase, with some degree of success, the future value of an utility
function. I came to believe that what people usually call intelligence
is something that is fundamentally linked to Darwinian dynamics.
In that case, consciousness, or conscience, might be at the
antipode of
intelligence.
That feeling is strengthened when reading the news...
I agree. We became the apex predator on this planet, and so competent
in your sense of the word that we are effectively cancer. I believe we
have the potential to transcend biology, but at the moment it seems
that we are taking steps backwards. Society is becoming increasingly
insane. Perhaps it's just how it works, some steps back are
unavoidable. I share with you the ideia that prohibition is central to
the disease, and I think that it is no coincidence that its current
incarnation came out of fear of the hippies and their program -- in
our sick society, being anti-war and pro-love is the most subversive
stance that can be conceived.
I take the liberty of sharing a very short video showing a guy that
realised the fallacy of utility functions (perhaps with some chemical
help :)
https://youtu.be/vMhiDCZXU2k?t=7
although I doubt that it is possible to build a sophisticated AI
that
is not conscious (or even a simple one, I don't know).
We have to distinguish Hameroff from Penrose. Hameroff believes/
assumes that
the brain operates at the quantum level,. He assumes that it is a
quantum
computer. But a quantum computer does not violate the classical
Church's
thesis, and his hypothesis does not change the conclusion of
Mechanism
(although it makes more complex the derivation of physics a priori).
I have to revisit OR and both Hameroff and Penrose on this. Apparently
there is now some evidence for mcrotubules being shielded from
decoherence?
Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a
classical computer,
I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Of course, it
can "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating
the subject, that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can
generate a genuine random bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum
computer, you need to emulate the duplication of the observer, like in
the WM duplication.
but with comp it would have consequences regarding
our "insertion" in reality, so to say. Correct?
I am not sure of what you mean exactly. It would not change the
physics, but allow us to exploit more directly the FPI. I am
completely agnostic on this, but I am not convince by the current
argument that there are evidences that a brain could be a quantum
computer. They might be right, but I wait for more evidences.
Elementary arithmetic is full of quantum computing machineries. I
even
suspect that the prime number distribution encodes a universal
quantum
chaotic dovetailing,
Can you explain what you mean by chaotic dovetailing?
Have you heard about quantum chaos? Here I meant classical usual
dovetailing on the classical emulation of quantum chaos. From the FPI,
it can converge on "genuine" quantum chaos. There are some evidences,
related to the Riemann hypothesis that the "spectrum" or he critical
zero of zeta might correspond to some quantum chaoitic hamiltonian's
eigenvalue. I read that a long time ago. If quantum chaos is Turing
universal, it could even be quantum-Turing universal, and generate a
quantum universal dovetailer. But that would not solve the mind-body
problem. The machine-theological solution can work only if we can
explain why the measure which would be associated to that particular
quantum chaos win the arithmetical (classical, mechanist) FPI problem.
The Rieman hypothesis would help but is far from sufficiant.
but even if that is true, that should not be used to
justify physics, because we would get the quanta, and not the
qualia (unless
the Riemann hypothesis is shown undecidable in PA (and thus true!).
Only Penrose asks for an explicit non computable physical reduction
of the
waves, with some role for gravity, and is authentically
non-computationalist. Penrose is coherent with computationalism. He
keep
physics as fundamental, but accept the price: the abandon of
mechanism. But
his argument aganist mechanism is not valid, and already defeated by
machines like PA, ZF, etc.
You mean is maligned statement that the human brain is capable of
accessing truths that lie beyond the Gödelian veil?
I mean all Löbian machine are capable of accessing truths that lie to
the Gödelian veil, and use this to refute Penrose. Already in 1931,
Gödel realized that PA (or equivalently his own theory P) was proving
its own Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, and is perfectly able
to sort out his own undecidable proposition. Gödel's proof is
constructive. It limits the formalism, but shows them how to improve
themselves accordingly, leading to transfinite possible self-
improvement. The machine can find its undecidable statement, and bet
on them with the interrogation mark, or discuss them as mysteries
(consciousness). Of course, they cannot prove them, nor even assert
them as new axiom, but they can understand them, and use them, notably
by becoming "mystical" and "religious", and distinguishing *their*
science from *their* religion, in the scientific way, like they can
develop the non-monotonical layers of mind on which Gödel's
incompleteness will not apply: they need only to be able to say
something like "Oops, I was wrong", which is the beginning of the
manifestation of intelligence/doubt (already present in the Löb
formula).
Bruno
T.
Bruno
Telmo.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
