Note that quantum computers cannot compute anything except Turing-computable functions. Their only difference is that they can compute some things massively faster, in the average case.
Thus, if a certain body of data is insufficient for a classical computer to draw a conclusion (given infinite compute time), then it is also inadequate for a quantum computer to do so. This does not rule out other odd possibilities, such as that the quantum brain could somehow possess info about the environment via quantum entanglement (info that would not be accessible to a classical computer.) My thoughts on the relation between quantum computing, quantum logic and the brain are highly eccentric, see: http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/03/can-quantum-logic-apply-to-classical.html However, my thinking is compatible with the idea that we can create a superhuman AGI on typical digital computers ... my uncertainty regards the degree to which a system much more complex than a given observer should be considered "classical" with respect to that observer. -- Ben G On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you Colin, that reply is completely satisfying! In fact, ignore > the email I just sent off-list. (Still not convinced that COMP is > definitely false, but I see how it could be, if you don't want to > count quantum computers as computers, and think the brain harnesses > quantum computation.) > > For those watching, a correction is in order: Colin replied to my > argument off-list, but I did not notice and re-posted after Colin's > big long on-list reply to everyone else. So, Colin wasn't actually > ignoring me when I thought he was... :) > > --Abram > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Colin Hales > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK. Last one! > > Please replace 2) with: > > > > 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient > > to construct a visual scene. > > > > Whether or not that 'constuct' arises from computation is a matter of > > semantics. I would say that it could be considered computation - natural > > computation by electrodynamic manipulation of natural symbols. Not > > abstractions of the kind we manipulate in the COMP circumstance. That is > why > > I use the term COMP... > > > > It's rather funny: you could redefine computation to include natural > > computation (through the natural causality that is electrodynamics as it > > happens in brain material). Then you could claim computationalism to be > > true. But you'd still behave the same: you'd be unable to get AGI from a > > Turing machine. So you'd flush all traditional computers and make new > > technology.... Computationalism would then be true but 100% useless as a > > design decision mechanism. Frankly I'd rather make AGI that works than be > > right according to a definition! The lesson is that there's no pracitcal > > use in being right according to a definition! What you need to be able to > do > > is make successful choices. > > > > > > OK. Enough. A very enjoyable but sticky thread...I gotta work! > > > > cheers all for now. > > > > regards > > > > Colin > > > > > > Abram Demski wrote: > >> > >> Colin, > >> > >> I believe you did not reply to my points? Based on your definition of > >> computationalism, it appears that my criticism of your argument does > >> apply after all. To restate: > >> > >> Your argument appears to assume computationalism. Here is a numbered > >> restatement: > >> > >> 1. We have a visual experience of the world. > >> 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient > >> to compute one. > >> 3. Therefore, we must get more information. > >> 4. The only possible sources are material and spatial. > >> 5. Material is already known to be insufficient, therefore we must > >> also get spatial info. > >> > >> Computationalism is assumed to get from #2 to #3. If we do not assume > >> computationalism, then the argument would look more like this: > >> > >> 1. We have a visual experience of the world. > >> 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient > >> to compute one. > >> 3. Therefore, our visual experience is not computed. > >> > >> This is obviously unsatisfying because it doesn't say where the visual > >> scene comes from; answers range from prescience to quantum > >> hypercomputation, but that does not seem important to the current > >> issue. > >> > >> --Abram > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> agi > >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > agi > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
