Tegmark has painted himself into a corner on the subject of high
temperature quantum coherence. The problem is the neglect of the role that
structure ("special arrangement") can play. For example check out
metamaterials whose properties mostly come from the "special arrangement".
Tegmark treats the brain as a homogeneous lump of matter. No wonder...
I would not consider his arguments credible given resent findings on
photosynthesis and q-coherence.On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote: > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
