I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable for quantum computation, because of the temperature being "to high" for qc to occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum effects which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers involving the quantum and plants)?
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 10:23 am Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales > <cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: >> RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 >> >> Consciousness as a State of Matter >> >> Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 >> >> >> >> Hi Folk, >> >> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! >> >> I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s >> grapplings with >> consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so >> pervasive >> and so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it’s a long way >> from >> physics to neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we >> can see it >> for what it is. Can’t they (Tegmark and ilk) see that the so-called >> “science of consciousness” is >> >> · the “the science of the scientific observer” >> >> · trying to explain observing with observations >> >> · trying to explain experience with experiences >> >> · trying to explain how scientists do science. >> >> · a science of scientific behaviour. >> >> · Descriptive and never explanatory. >> >> · Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm ‘laws >> of nature’ >> contacts the actual underlying reality... >> >> · Assuming there’s only 1 scientific behaviour and never >> ever ever >> questioning that. >> >> · Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of >> anything. >> >> · Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of >> subjectivity, doesn’t evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it. >> >> · Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with >> objectified phenomena. >> >> >> >> 2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit presupposition....now >> gives us >> exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new ‘state >> of >> matter’? Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is >> admit we >> are actually inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, >> getting a >> view from the point of view of being a bit of it...... grrrrrrrr. >> The big >> mistake is that thinking that physics has ever, in the history of >> science, >> ever ever ever dealt with what the universe is actually made of, as >> opposed >> to merely describing what a presupposed observer ‘sees it looking >> like’. The >> next biggest mistake is assuming that we can’t deal with what the >> universe >> is actually made of, when that very stuff is delivering an ability to >> scientifically observe in the first place. >> >> >> >> These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even >> lifted a >> finger over the keyboard. Those involved don’t even know what the >> problem >> is. The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science >> itself_ >> ... _us_. >> >> >> >> Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a >> book on >> this and hopefully it’ll be out within 6 months. That’ll sort them >> out. >> >> >> >> Happy new year! > > I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am > conscious, I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that your body can be a lump of dumb matter, but that *you* are a person, using that dumb of matter as a vehicle and mean to manifest yourself. In principle (assuming comp of course), you can change your body every morning (and as you have often explain your self, we do change our "lump of dumb matter" every n number of years. > so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in > a special way might not also be conscious. But here I agree with your point, although it is less misleading to consider the person as some immaterial entity (like a game, a program, memories, personality traits, ... no need of magical soul with wings) owning your body. If the human would born directly fixed inside a car, they would also believe that their car is part of their body. Nature provides us with a body at birth, and that might be the reason why we tend to identify ourselves with our bodies, but comp, which I think you accept, shows the limit of this identification, imo. Eventually, the UDA shows that at a very fundamental level, bodies are only statistical machine's percepts, or statistical relative numbers percepts. > What is it about that idea > that you see as not only wrong, but ridiculous? It is not what I am saying here, to be sure. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
