> On 8 Aug 2019, at 12:56, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > On 8/7/2019 8:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On 8/7/2019 2:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:23 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/7/2019 8:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> > This is made most clear in the case of a quantum computer. Where the >>> > quantum computer can be viewed as one WORLD (def 1) that contains many >>> > little worlds (def 2), where each computational trace constitutes its >>> > own little world, causally isolated from the rest. >>> >>> Except those computational traces DO NOT constitute little worlds. They >>> are not causally isolated. The whole function of the computer depends >>> on them interacting, i.e. interfering coherently. >>> >>> >>> It depends on the algorithm. >>> >>> If, as in my neural net example, interference is not used, the many >>> computations are causally isolated, and will remain so (FAPP) once I read >>> the output bits. >>> >>> You seem to want it both ways. "Yes they are many worlds, but they're not >>> entirely or always completely causally isolated, so they're not really >>> separate worlds." >> >> You're the one who introduced worlds and little worlds. My point is just >> that doing computations with lots of qubits doesn't imply there are separate >> worlds in which the computations happen; in fact it requires the contrary if >> the computation is to come to a single conclusion. >> >> No disagreement with that, but my point all along is that "many somethings" >> associated with the qubits in the quantum computer, can lead to >> many minds which can have many experiences, when the quantum computer >> executes computational traces which create conscious states. Do you >> disagree with this? > > No. As far as I know minds are classical like processes in brains. > > Quantum logic gates are Turing complete. This means quantum computers can > emulate any classical computation. So in certain algorithms, the components > of the superposition are traces of distinct classical computations. > > > That's why you are never really "of two minds". Superpositions > corresponding to neurons firing and not-firing decohere far too quickly. See > Tegmark's paper. > > > I'm aware of it. It's about decoherence times of biological neurons to > disprove the Penrose idea that brains exploit quantum mechanics to somehow > overcome incompleteness.
That was Hameroff’s idea. Penrose defended the idea that consciousness has nothing to do with computation, be them classical or quantum. In fact Penrose’s idea is that consciousness is responsible for the wave packet reduction, and that gravitation plays some role in consciousness. Unlike Penrose, Hameroff considered that the brain could be a quantum computer. Tegmark’s critics applies to Hameroff, but not really to Penrose who use explicitly a dualist Copenhagen type of Quantum theory. They might have both change their mind since I read (and met) them many years ago. Only Penrose’s theory is non-mechanist. That the brain is a quantum computer would not change the consequence of digital mechanism, as all universal machine can simulate a quantum computer (despite the huge slowing down, but the first person in arithmetic cannot detect it). Bruno > > The point of using a quantum computer in my example is that decoherence > doesn't happen until after the computational traces have all been realized. > > If I understand your position correctly, you believe the distinct > computational traces exist but that they're not consciousness, because you > postulate decoherence at each step of the computation is necessary? > > Would this not make Wigner's friend into a zombie (or any AI or brain > emulation performed on a quantum computer)? Does my clarification of the > Turing completeness of Quantum logic gates do anything to amend your opinion? > > Jason > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiH16ost5cO66nqc1Rv0GoUzipN0QuwyxaYywCvZ88jvQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiH16ost5cO66nqc1Rv0GoUzipN0QuwyxaYywCvZ88jvQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0A6418CB-140E-4E34-BC8A-02CAEE9A10BA%40ulb.ac.be.
