> On 19 Mar 2018, at 22:02, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> 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. > You’ve got that right. > > > 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. > That’s nice. I repeat my question, 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? >
I agree. NP completeness has nothing to do with consciousness. But the higher degree of unsolvability has a relation, because it measures our ignorance, or machine’s ignorance, and the awareness of that ignorance has some role in self-consciousness. RA is conscious, but lack this higher order self-consciousness (which might already be a sort of delusion, actually). Bruno > > A map from a brain to a computer is going to require knowing how to handle > > these problems. > That is utterly ridiculous! Duplicating a map is not a NP-complete problem, > in fact its not much of a problem at all, a Xerox machine can do it. In this > case we're not trying to find the shortest path or even a shorted path than > the one the trailing salesman took. All we need do is take the path the > salesman already took. > > > Quantum computers do not help much. > > It would be great to have a quantum computer but would not be necessary for > uploading or for AI, it would just be icing on the cake. > > It could have some bearing on the ability to emulate consciousness in a > computer. > > Yes, and the Goldbach conjecture might have some bearing on the ability to > emulate consciousness in a computer too, but there is not one particle of > evidence to suggest that either of the two actually does. There are a > infinite number of things and concepts in the universe and not one of them > has been ruled out as having somethings to do with consciousness, and that’s > why consciousness theories are so easy to come up with and why they are so > completely useless. Intelligence theories are a different matter entirely, > they are testable. > > >> 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. > How do you figure that? A computer can never find the 7918th Busy Beaver > number but my consciousness can never find it either. I’ll be damned if I see > how one thing has anything to do with the other. It seems to me that you > don’t want computers to be conscious so you looked for a problem that a > computer can never solve and just decreed that problem must have something to > do with consciousness. But computers can’t find the 7918th Busy Beaver number > because the laws of physics can’t find it, even the universe itself doesn’t > know what that finite number is. But I know for a fact that the universe does > know how to arrange atoms so they behave in a johnkclarkian way and become > conscious. The universe doesn't know how to solve NP complete problems in > polynomial time, much less NP hard problems, much less flat out > non-computable problems like the busy Beaver, so I don't see how any of them > could have anything to do with consciousness. > > > Of course brains and computers are made of matter. So is a pile of shit > > also made of matter. > Exactly, and the only difference between my brain and a pile of shit is the > way the generic atoms are arranged, and the only difference between a cadaver > and a healthy living person is the way the generic atoms are arranged. One > carbon atom is identical to another so the only thing that specifies > something as being me or a cadaver or pile of shit is the information on how > to arrange those atoms. > > > 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. > Maybe maybe maybe. The above is a excellent example of what I was talking > about, consciousness theories are utterly and completely useless. Is this > really the best you can do? Are piles of shit and the interior of Black Holes > the only places you can find arguments against Cryonics? > > > As things stand now I would not do the upload. > But is that because you believe there is no change of it working or because > you believe there is? I think the chances are greater than zero but less than > 100% and I’m not afraid to give it a try. After all, I have the money and if > it doesn’t work it won’t make me any deader. > > There is a excellent article by Kenneth Hayworth on the nuts and bolts of how > this uploading procedure might work from the present day when you undergo the > procedure to about 70 years in the future where you’re revived and uploaded > into a robot body: > > http://www.brainpreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/vitrifyingtheconnectomicself_hayworth.pdf > > <http://www.brainpreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/vitrifyingtheconnectomicself_hayworth.pdf>Kenneth > Hayworth is the guy who developed the new Aldehyde-stabilized > cryopreservation method. I remember when people talked about how ice crystals > would rupture cells and freezing the brain would turn it into mush; well > Hayworth froze a pig brain down to −130 C (−202 F) then he warmed it back up > to room temperature and took a series of 3D pictures of it with a electron > microscope. The detail is amazing! I would have been delighted if the > pictures were made when the brain was still frozen but this is even better > because the rewarming is when most of the damage happens. See for yourself: > http://www.brainpreservation.org/ <http://www.brainpreservation.org/> > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 [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.
