On 8/2/2011 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net
<mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
No, my thought is that quantum coherence accounts for, among
other things, the way that sense data is continuously integrated
into a whole. This leads to a situation that Daniel C. Dennett
calls the "Cartesian Theater". Dennett's proof that it cannot
exist because it generates infinite regress of homunculi inside
humonculi is flawed because such infinities can only occur if each
of the humonculi has access to sufficient computational resources
to generate the rest of them. When we understand that computations
require the utilization of resources and do not occur 'for free'
we see that the entire case against situations that imply the
possibility of infinite regress fails.
Quantum phenomena is NOT all about randomness. Frankly I would
really like to understand how that rubbish of an idea still is
held in seriously thinking people! There is not randomness in QM,
there in only the physical inability to predict exactly when some
quantum event will occur in advance. It is because QM system
cannot be copied that makes it impossible to predict their
behavior in advance, not because of some inherent randomness! Take
the infamous radioactive atom in the Schrodinger Cat box. Is its
decay strictly a "random" phenomena? Not really! QM says not one
word about randomness, it only allows us to calculate the
half-life of said atom and that calculation is as good as is
possible given the fact that we cannot generate a simulation of
that atom and its environment and all of the interactions thereof
in a way that we can get predictions about its behavior in advance.
What is the distinction between random and unpredictable?
Unpredictable means that it cannot be predicted. Randomness is
uncaused. A completely deterministic behavior can be unpredictable and
not random. Consider the behaviour of a non-linear system.
A consciousness can no more be copied than the state of a QM
system.
That's the point in question. If Tegmark is right, it can.
Tegmark is wrong.
Stephen, do you doubt that consciousness can be implemented by a
digital machine or process?
I doubt that consciousness can be implemented in classical machines
or their logical equivalents. Digital machines maybe, if they involve
quantum entanglement of a certain kind.
Onward!
Stephen
Jason
--
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.
--
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.
