On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 8:34:34 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 at 10:36 pm, Lawrence Crowell < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> The Aaronson discussion about soap bubbles and optimization is in line >> with something I have maintained. Eternal black holes with the inner >> horizon r_- continuous with I^+ means in principle a Turing machine >> approaching r_- could receive an infinite stream of bits or qubits so it >> could make a catalog of all Turing machines that halt and do not halt. >> Quantum mechanics enters into the physics, such as Hawking radiation, that >> separates r_- from I^+. However, this may adjust the Chaitan halting >> probability. With NP-complete problems this would translate into the >> existence of systems that approximate such solutions. >> >> I suspect the individual consciousness of a person or even animals is >> wrapped up in some sort of code, that while it might be derived in some >> approximate way it is tough to find from outside. The thesis that all of >> consciousness is a manifestation of calculation presumes the brain is >> primarily involved with computation. The problem is that the brain computes >> little in the way of mathematical solutions, but rather is involved with >> maintenance of homeostasis of an organism. Further, consciousness is less >> about solving problems than it is about maintaining a self-referenced >> narrative that is a positive feedback and forms a meaning cycle. >> > > The sequence of reasoning is not that the brain does computation, and that > therefore consciousness is computation. It is that the brain apparently > gives rise to consciousness, and if brain components can be replaced by a > computer, then consciousness should be preserved, otherwise the implausible > situation would occur where consciousness gradually fades or suddenly > disappears during the replacement process despite no change in behaviour. > Against this is the possibility that some component of the brain utilises > non-computable physics, so the replacement would fail; but there is no > evidence for this, and it seems to me the main reason such theories are > entertained at all is a disdain for the idea that human beings are just > ordinary matter. >
The point is not that neurological processes can't be modeled using biophysical algorithms. Below is a neural circuit diagram that illustrates a feedback structure. These neurons could be replaced by flip flop systems and other electronic. In that way this system could be modeled. My main point is there is a distinction between the territory and the map. Feynman also made the quip that simulation is like masturbation; it is fine until you start thinking it is the real thing. LC <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UI-xEX4ZlC4/WquuXqqaX7I/AAAAAAAADQ4/oYYYNdMTQvIDc4isEF3myVIliqK2Mm5lACLcBGAs/s1600/thalamocortical%2Bcircuit.gif> > I am not going to sign up for having my brain states downloaded any time >> soon. You pretty much have to die for this to take place. I am not sure how >> the brain is preserved this way in the few minutes before redox reactions >> begin to demolish neurons once blood flow stops. >> >> I will also prognosticate that the main use of this sort of technology >> may end up being to support a complete reign of terror. Brain states >> downloaded into computers could easily be subjected to endless torment, and >> a reign of terror based on a sort of techno-eschatology might easily be >> established. >> >> Dylan Thomas went gentle into the gentle night. >> >> LC >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 11:26:21 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Lawrence Crowell < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >> So I take it you believe in the magical carbon theory, the idea that >>>>> particular element has mystical properties that the element silicon lacks >>>>> even though the scientific method can not see nothing of the sort. I >>>>> think >>>>> that theory is not only wrong it is lethal to those who adhere to it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > *It is not about believing anything.* >>> >>> Our beliefs determine our actions. For example: I believe my chances of >>> surviving after my brain has been cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures is >>> less than 100% and greater than 0%, but my chances of surviving after my >>> brain has been burned up in a crematorium or eaten by worms is precisely >>> 0%, so I signed up. You have not signed up so you must believe something >>> different. >>> >>>> *> Our brains operate not just as switching systems of neurons, but >>>> neurons are themselves biological.* >>> >>> Most of what neurons do has nothing to do with thinking or consciousness >>> or any sort of information processing but just involves the dull basic >>> metabolism needed to keep operating, the exact same thing that skin cells >>> do, and kidney cells, and large intestine cells. >>> >>>> *> The real computer analogue I think extends down to the molecular >>>> level,* >>> >>> Maybe, although there is little evidence for that. Even if true I don’t >>> see how that’s a show stopper, a combination of glutaraldehyde fixation and >>> cryogenic storage should keep most molecular level information intact too, >>> or at least keep it from being scrambled so chaotically that even a Jupiter >>> Brain couldn’t unscramble it. >>> >>>> *> I think it is a very extreme proposition to advance the idea that >>>> emulating a brain on silicon or similar solid state physics systems will >>>> conserve consciousness.* >>> >>> I think it is a far far more extreme proposition to advance the opposite >>> idea because the immediate implication would be that Charles Darwin was >>> dead wrong. However important consciousness is to me to Evolution its >>> irrelevant because Natural Selection can’t directly detect consciousness >>> any better than I can directly detect consciousness in other people, but >>> both I and Natural Selection CAN detect intelligent behavior. So >>> consciousness must be a byproduct of intelligence. That’s why I get so >>> impatient with consciousness theories that just ignore intelligence. After >>> saying consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed >>> intelligently there is nothing more to be said about consciousness. >>> >>> I suppose it could be argued that maybe Evolution just got lucky and >>> came up with a sort of consciousness circuit by accident, but such a part >>> would not be stable. Consciousness by itself confers no adaptive advantage, >>> only intelligent behavior does, so even if consciousness emerged by pure >>> chance millions of years ago today it would be long gone due to genetic >>> drift, just as the eyes of creatures that have lived for thousands of >>> generations in dark caves have disappeared. And yet here I am, and although >>> I can’t prove it to you I know for a fact that I am conscious. So if >>> the “consciousness circuit” does nothing but generate consciousness it >>> would be gone by now, but if it changed behavior too then the Turing Test >>> also works for consciousness and not just intelligence. Finally a critic >>> could say that maybe Evolution came up with consciousness because it was >>> the simplest path (but not the only path) to intelligence, but if so then >>> we will also find it easier to make a intelligent conscious computer >>> than a intelligent non-conscious computer. >>> >>>> *> I can very well imagine this could emulate the brain activity of a >>>> person, but I think it is a bit much to voluntarily agree to death so your >>>> brain can be uploaded in a machine.* >>> >>> I agree, I wouldn’t want to be the first, I’d rather wait until they >>> worked out the bugs in the process; unless of course I was already on my >>> deathbed and the only alternative was to be eaten by worms. >>> >>>> *> I suspect consciousness involves some sort of uncomputable Godel >>>> type of number.* >>> >>> If so then its very very odd that nobody has even found a natural >>> phenomenon that can solve a NP-hard problem in polynomial time, much less >>> found a natural process that can solve uncomputable problems. Quantum >>> Computer expert Scott Aaronson found a simple demonstration of this fact: >>> >>> *"taking two glass plates with pegs between them, and dipping the >>> resulting contraption into a tub of soapy water. The idea is that the >>> soap bubbles that form between the pegs should trace out the minimum >>> Steiner tree — that is, the minimum total length of line segments >>> connecting the pegs, where the segments can meet at points other than the >>> pegs themselves. Now, this is known to be an NP-hard optimization problem. >>> So, it looks like Nature is solving NP-hard problems in polynomial time!* >>> >>> *Long story short, I went to the hardware store, bought some glass >>> plates, liquid soap, etc., and found that, while Nature does often find a >>> minimum Steiner tree with 4 or 5 pegs, it tends to get stuck at local >>> optima with larger numbers of pegs. Indeed, often the soap bubbles settle >>> down to a configuration which is not even a tree (i.e. contains “cycles of >>> soap”), and thus provably can’t be optimal.* >>> >>> *The situation is similar for protein folding. Again, people have said >>> that Nature seems to be solving an NP-hard optimization problem in every >>> cell of your body, by letting the proteins fold into their minimum-energy >>> configurations. But there are two problems with this claim. The first >>> problem is that proteins, just like soap bubbles, sometimes get stuck in >>> suboptimal configurations — indeed, it’s believed that’s exactly what >>> happens with Mad Cow Disease. The second problem is that, to the extent >>> that proteins do usually fold into their optimal configurations, there’s an >>> obvious reason why they would: natural selection! If there were a protein >>> that could only be folded by proving the Riemann Hypothesis, the gene that >>> coded for it would quickly get weeded out of the gene pool." * >>> >>> By the way I highly recommend Aaronson's book "Quantum Computing since >>> Democritus". >>> >>>> *> I can see some plausible prospect of removing a brain or CNS from a >>>> body and putting that in another body.* >>> >>> Or connecting your brain to a virtual body, in fact that could have >>> already happened to you for all you know. And if you’re not already a brain >>> in a vat you’re certainly a brain in a box made of bone. >>> >>>> *> Even there I suspect the experience might be terribly disorienting, >>>> as bodies have a sort of "body brain," which involve a dog's brain worth >>>> of >>>> neurons, and one would not just have a new body so much as you would >>>> neurologically negotiate with the new body for a while.* >>> >>> So did Stephen Hawking die today or did he die in 1973 when he started >>> to lose control of his body? I am not a world class athlete so if I woke up >>> and found that had changed and now my body had the strength of a sumo >>> wrestler the endurance of a marathon runner and the muscular coordination >>> of a gold medal gymnast I wouldn’t be very upset. >>> >>>> *> I am not sure many of these things will happen. * >>> >>> Do you need to be certain of the outcome before you take any action? >>> Suppose you were on a sinking ship in a hurricane and the radio is out so >>> no SOS has been sent and you’re very far from the nearest land. There is >>> a lifeboat but it's small and the waves are mountainous and the ocean is >>> huge. So, would you get into the lifeboat? As for me I agree with Dylan >>> Thomas and would rather not go gentle into that good night and would prefer >>> to rage against the dying of the light. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
