2009/11/27 Mauro Lacy <[email protected]>: >> Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends, > > Hi, > I assume you meant -wheeling.
Yes > >> ---------------- >> Harry, >>>> When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there >>>> is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if >>>> this list >>>> is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be >>>> OFF the >>>> list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory! >> >> Yes. And interestingly, the possibilities which are off the list (zero >> probability) can be very exactly defined in some experiments, as can >> be seen by entering a large number e.g. 100000 and hitting the "More" >> button repeatedly in this nice double slit applet: >> >> http://www.ianford.com/dslit/ >> >> Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield, >> after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe >> pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments. And that's >> where QM beats any classical or neoclassical theory with both hands >> tied behind its back! >> ---------------- >> Jones, it's not nice to have published the blueprints of my brain ;-) >> BTW I didn't see multiple definitions of free will in the WP article, >> nor did I see much useful information there. Philosophy should be left >> to scientists, as the name says and as it was in the early days! >> ---------------- >> Mauro, I suspect that your concept that conscience is not >> physico-mechanical will be laughed at heartily by your desktop >> computer in 2042, date at which it will have as many logical gates as >> a human brain according to Moore's law (IIRC). > > Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain > phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical > mechanics, due to its stochastic nature. > So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll > have to be built in a way which allows stochastic processes to occur in > their circuits. That is, they'll have to be capable of non-deterministic > behavior. just let them run on Vista :) Seriously, I don't think built-in randomness is required to create conscience, sheer complexity should suffice. > I certainly think that that is possible, and a machine like that will be > probably made one day. That day, those machines will achieve not only > conscience, but also free will. Not any more than us. > What remains to be seen is what drastic decisions they'll probably take > when aware of their origins, reality and planned destiny. This will be fun. > The literature > abounds in speculations on this subject, "2001 Space Odyssey" being one of > the classical (and better) examples. I love this film. Hopefully, real computers of the future will have a better sense of humor than Hal! Michel
