http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205092v8.pdf
Bruno(and anyone else)
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To
On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:15, ronaldheld wrote:
Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I answer Bruno.
Ronald
Ronald, I still don't know if you have a problem with the first steps
of the UDA. Or if you
Bruno:
I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is
Turing emulatable, but will move onward. Using Star Trek transporter
concepts, I can accept steps 1 through 5. Step 6 takes only the mind
and sends it to a finite computational device or the entire person
into a device sim
On 01 Dec 2010, at 18:48, Pzomby wrote:
What if we discover 'curiositon' :)
If a ‘curiousaton’ and a beliefiton are ever discovered a biological
TOEton may not be far behind. : )
A particle of everything!
I'm afraid that for breaking it you will need an accelerator
necessarily bigger
On 02 Dec 2010, at 15:51, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is
Turing emulatable, but will move onward.
OK. It is better to say brain instead of mind. The doctor proposes an
artificial digital brain, and keep silent on what is the min
Tegmark published a paper which largely refutes the idea that neurons use
quantum interference to perform any useful computation:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009
In short, the brain is far to hot and uncontrolled to maintain decoherence
for the time periods involved in neural processes. Th
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/27/2010 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if you have used some physical system (like a computer) that can
>>> be interpreted as executing an algorithm that manipulates bits th
7 matches
Mail list logo
