Re: Brain-computer interface and quantum robots

2009-09-10 Thread John Mikes
Ronald.
I pursue (vaguely) such development and - though have no intention to
outguess Bruno's opinion - find it a VERY PRACTICAL (may I call it: e-bio)
line. (lineS - plural). Quite amazing results have been so far achieved in
this IMO totally initial phase. I can't wait how the ultra-theoreticians on
this list will include such results into 'machine-consciousness' etc.
ideas.
John M

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:


  arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
 I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
 thoughts?
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Brain-computer interface and quantum robots

2009-09-10 Thread ronaldheld

I have to agree that I am curious what responses I will get from the
frequent posters.
I see this as someday being able to say,yes, Doctor.
Ronald

On Sep 10, 9:17 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ronald.
 I pursue (vaguely) such development and - though have no intention to
 outguess Bruno's opinion - find it a VERY PRACTICAL (may I call it: e-bio)
 line. (lineS - plural). Quite amazing results have been so far achieved in
 this IMO totally initial phase. I can't wait how the ultra-theoreticians on
 this list will include such results into 'machine-consciousness' etc.
 ideas.
 John M



 On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:

   arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
  I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
  thoughts?- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Brain-computer interface and quantum robots

2009-09-10 Thread Brent Meeker

ronaldheld wrote:
  arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
 I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
 thoughts?
   
The authors write, However, recent studies lead to the conclusion that 
the human mind is not a classical computer, and, in general, not 
completely reducible to any kind of computer (not even classical) 
because of the
non-algorithmic nature of some mental processes.  But they give to no 
reference to these recent studies.  The paper seems to be about well 
known problems in training artificial neural networks and other 
artificial learning algorithms.  Sure EEG is inadequate to define 
intention, there's just not much information there.  I don't see that 
as having any foundational implications.

Brent

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Brain-computer interface and quantum robots

2009-09-10 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 10 Sep 2009, at 19:38, Brent Meeker wrote:


 ronaldheld wrote:
 arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
 I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
 thoughts?

 The authors write, However, recent studies lead to the conclusion  
 that
 the human mind is not a classical computer, and, in general, not
 completely reducible to any kind of computer (not even classical)
 because of the
 non-algorithmic nature of some mental processes.  But they give to no
 reference to these recent studies.  The paper seems to be about well
 known problems in training artificial neural networks and other
 artificial learning algorithms.  Sure EEG is inadequate to define
 intention, there's just not much information there.  I don't see  
 that
 as having any foundational implications.

I think so. Yet the authors postulate a wave collapse, and conclude


The previous arguments showed that the quantum approach predicts the  
possibility of a direct action
of mind on matter.
 

Just an old idea, it seems to me.

See Deutsch and Albert for quantum intospection in Everett and Bohm  
respectively.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---