On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) >> >>>> What if the substitution level turns out to be at a higher level than >>>> quantum? E.g. at the level of the neurons and their connections and >>>> activations levels? >>> >>> >>> >>> That would enlarge the uncertainty spectrum on the realities we can >>> access >>> without losing anything subjective. It would help the doctor to build the >>> artificial brain. It could also make more difficult to justify the >>> smallness >>> of Planck constant, and to explain why the quantum seems more obviously >>> present in the micro-states, Decoherence would be easier to fight >>> against, >>> and quantum computing would be more easy to be realized. This lakes me >>> think >>> that the quantum level is boundary of the substitution level. >> >> >> This appears to be a testable hypothesis. >> >> I know that Penrose proposed a theory on the quantum effects inside >> neurons that turned ou to be problematic because of decoherence, but >> of course that doesn't mean that quantum mechanics might not play a >> much more holistic role in brain activity. >> >> I remember a presentation perhaps a decade ago by a neuroscientist at >> an artificial life conference, where she showed that neurons can >> operate in a chaotic regime. In fact, she claimed at the time that we >> did not have the computational power to accurately simulate a single >> neuron. To me, this suggests that the activation of neurons might be >> governed by much subtler phenomena than simple threshold effects. >> Perhaps it is conceivable that small scale quantum effects could >> propagate to the macro level of the brain. >> >> On the other hand, it is also true that artificial neural network >> models with just simple threshold neurons are already Turing complete, >> provided that one allows for recurrence. This proves nothing, but >> purely when worrying about neuroscince / artificial intelligence, I am >> a it weary of going for more complicated models when there is still so >> much to explore in the simpler ones... I say this while completely >> disregarding the hard problem. I have perhaps the unusual intuition >> that intelligence and consciousness are quite different issues -- > > > I share that intuition when intelligence is used in the sense of competence.
Ok. When I say intelligence I am thinking about systems that can increase, with some degree of success, the future value of an utility function. I came to believe that what people usually call intelligence is something that is fundamentally linked to Darwinian dynamics. > In that case, consciousness, or conscience, might be at the antipode of > intelligence. > That feeling is strengthened when reading the news... I agree. We became the apex predator on this planet, and so competent in your sense of the word that we are effectively cancer. I believe we have the potential to transcend biology, but at the moment it seems that we are taking steps backwards. Society is becoming increasingly insane. Perhaps it's just how it works, some steps back are unavoidable. I share with you the ideia that prohibition is central to the disease, and I think that it is no coincidence that its current incarnation came out of fear of the hippies and their program -- in our sick society, being anti-war and pro-love is the most subversive stance that can be conceived. I take the liberty of sharing a very short video showing a guy that realised the fallacy of utility functions (perhaps with some chemical help :) https://youtu.be/vMhiDCZXU2k?t=7 >> although I doubt that it is possible to build a sophisticated AI that >> is not conscious (or even a simple one, I don't know). > > > We have to distinguish Hameroff from Penrose. Hameroff believes/assumes that > the brain operates at the quantum level,. He assumes that it is a quantum > computer. But a quantum computer does not violate the classical Church's > thesis, and his hypothesis does not change the conclusion of Mechanism > (although it makes more complex the derivation of physics a priori). I have to revisit OR and both Hameroff and Penrose on this. Apparently there is now some evidence for mcrotubules being shielded from decoherence? Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a classical computer, but with comp it would have consequences regarding our "insertion" in reality, so to say. Correct? > Elementary arithmetic is full of quantum computing machineries. I even > suspect that the prime number distribution encodes a universal quantum > chaotic dovetailing, Can you explain what you mean by chaotic dovetailing? > but even if that is true, that should not be used to > justify physics, because we would get the quanta, and not the qualia (unless > the Riemann hypothesis is shown undecidable in PA (and thus true!). > > Only Penrose asks for an explicit non computable physical reduction of the > waves, with some role for gravity, and is authentically > non-computationalist. Penrose is coherent with computationalism. He keep > physics as fundamental, but accept the price: the abandon of mechanism. But > his argument aganist mechanism is not valid, and already defeated by > machines like PA, ZF, etc. You mean is maligned statement that the human brain is capable of accessing truths that lie beyond the Gödelian veil? T. > Bruno > > > > >> >> Telmo. >> >> -- >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
