On 19 March 2018 at 12:14, Lawrence Crowell < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 3:51:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Lawrence Crowell < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> *> The MH spacetimes have Cauchy horizons that because they pile up >>> geodesics can be a sort of singularity.* >> >> >> That’s not the only thing they have, MH spacetimes also have closed >> timelike curves and logical paradoxes produced by them, one of them being >> the one found by Turing. They also have naked singularities that nobody has >> ever seen the slightest hint of. And if you need to go to as exotic a place >> as the speculative interior of a Black Hole to find a reason why Cryonics >> might not work I am greatly encouraged. >> > > Not all MH spaces have closed timelike curves. > > >> >> *> The subject of NP-completeness came up because of my conjecture about >>> there being a sort of code associated with a conscious entity that is not >>> computable or if computable is intractable in NP. * >> >> >> NP-completeness is sorta weird and consciousness is sorta weird, but >> other than that is there any reason to think the two things are related? >> > > This seems to be something you are not registering. Classic NP-complete > problems involve cataloging subgraphs and determining the rules for all > subgraphs in a graph. There are other similar combinatoric problems that > are NP complete. A map from a brain to a computer is going to require > knowing how to handle these problems. Quantum computers do not help much. > > >> >> *> It could have some bearing on the ability to emulate consciousness in >>> a computer.* >> >> >> How do you figure that? Both my brain and my computer are made of matter >> that obeys the laws of physics, and matter that obeys the laws of physics >> has never been observed to compute NP-complete problems in polynomial time, >> much less less find the answer to a non-computable question, like “what is >> the 7918th Busy Beaver number?”. >> > > And for this reason it could be impossible to map brain states into a > computer and capture a person completely. Of course brains and computers > are made of matter. So is a pile of shit also made of matter. Based on what > we know about bacteria and their network communicating by electrical > potentials the pile of shit may have more in the way of consciousness than > a computer. > > As for the rest I think a lot of this sort of idea is chasing after some > crazy dream. There is in some ways a problem with doing that. As things > stand now I would not do the upload. Below is a picture of some aspect of > this. > > > <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-B42zD6RjTlo/Wq8Or4mWXiI/AAAAAAAADSs/rSPOyS5rTfwkhdWkws8ll7Huj6DVNHMqgCLcBGAs/s1600/Why%2Bis%2Bthe%2Bdog%2Bhappier.png> > Could you say if you think the observable behaviour of the brain (and hence of the person whose muscles are controlled by the brain) could be replaced by a computer, and, if the answer is yes, if you still think it is possible that the consciousness might not be preserved? And if the answer is also yes to the second question, what you think it would be like if your consciousness was changed by replacing part of your brain, but your brain still forced your body to behave in the same way? -- 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.
