Bruno,
I found this an incredibly moving reply. I also see clearly your
points. I am glad to have given you an opportunity to state so clearly
some profoundly important ideas. Thank you, and let's continue the
voyage.
I am glad that Penrose was wrong. But then, without somebody as
percep
On 21 Jan 2009, at 22:15, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 22/01/2009, at 3:50 AM, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
>>
>> Kim,
>>
>>> the uncomputability of this issue. Why should the mind be limited
>>> to the
>>> computable? Clearly it is not.
>>
>> So you deny Step 1 again? You say no to the doctor?
>
>
> I
On 21 Jan 2009, at 20:19, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
>
>> My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum
>> computation done without any measurement?
>
> Quantum lambda calculus by Andre van Tonder does not containt
> measurement.
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0307150v5
>
On 21 Jan 2009, at 05:46, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> OK. But keep in mind that consciousness is unique in the sense of
>> knowing that it cannot know its Turing emulability level (yet can
>> bet).
>>
>>
>>
>
> Footnote - (parenthetical digression): I know the above thought is
> native to you
4 matches
Mail list logo
