On 2/16/2012 8:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how
classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
But his teleportation, which is based on transmitting the position of
every atom in a human body is far more than required for Bruno's
argument which only requires transporting the brain's functional
structure. The position of atoms in your body change continuously
with no influence on your consciousness.
Hi Brent,
And where is the reference to an article discussing the experiment
that shows that this claim is true? Have you considered that our
"conscious" experience might be a tiny sliver of what is going on in our
heads, which includes all those atoms changing their positions (with how
much momentum? we can determine that using thermodynamics and
temperature arguments for a statistical average, OK)? So all we need is
semi-exact position data and a statistical upper and lower bound of
their momenta and we can reproduce a brain? Go ahead, give it a whirl. ;-)
Additionally, in consideration of the "mapping the neural
network" idea, how exactly are you going to overcome the fact that
the more precisely you measure the positions of every atom in a
brain the less information you can gather of their momenta?
Irrelevant. Computation takes place at the classical level, so you
only need classical level information.
Umm,OK. What if the "classical" is only the Boolean representable
part of the Universe? I am taking this line of reasoning in a different
direction not to obfuscate your point but to try to get you to better
understand what I am trying to explain. My conjecture is that what we
call conscious experience is restricted to being Boolean representable
and it is this restriction that is the source of the appearance that our
world is classical. We just happen to be somewhat justified in our
belief that "all that exists are Integers" because we cannot observe the
true nature of reality - which is a constant and total state of
superposition. Additionally there are some interesting and obsure
reasons that come from linear algebras that disallow for certain
operations to occur if the vector spaces of linear algebras is allowed
to be of infinite dimensionality. (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1zzRX9bnGs&feature=share for more details)
if we are going to implement a simulation of a brain that allows for
continuation then we had better be able to map both the position and
the momentum data down to the substitution level. The problem is that
the substitution level is molecular in scale, we know this because
chemical neutransmiters play a vital role in brain behavior.
That doesn't follow. The neurotransmitters are released in quantities
such that their diffusion is well modeled classically. In any case
their function is to excite the synapse, which could be done
electrically by an artificial neuron. There is nothing to indicate
that the substitution level must be at the molecule level, much less
at the quantum state of molecules. You are no doubt right that any
mapping/reproduction would introduce a discontinuity in the stream of
consciousness; but this isn't an important objection since a hard blow
to the head or some anesthetic does the same thing.
I am only considerign situations where reasonable quantities of
"missing time" and other disorientation are allowable in the
continuations. I have no unreasonable expectations here, I hope. It is
just that we have only started to understand how our 3.5 lb of "grey
matter" generates our illusion of consciousness so I don't think that
reckless speculations are advisable. Maybe I am being too timid, that
quite possible....
The fact that a tiny amount of LSD will totally change your "state of
mind" is sufficient proof of this.
The amount isn't that 'tiny' in terms of the number of molecules.
My point is that the level of substitution has to be at the
molecular level. Does QM stuff not matter at that level?
You see this is the kind of problems that get completely glossed
over in UDA. Many of you balk that I am making a big deal about
physics, but without physics we would simply not be here to have this
conversation.
As a physicist I'm happy to discuss the physics.
Brent
Awesome! I am ready to learn. ;-) I am a student after all, just a
bit of a smart ass, but that is just defensive coloring.
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
