On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:04:25 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:52 AM Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net > <javascript:>> wrote: > > * >Is that even relevant. Brains are presumably psuedo-classical >> objects. But they can't be strictly classical, so it seems likely that it >> is impossible to exactly duplicate a brain. * >> > > Brains can't be duplicated exactly nor can any physical object, but mind > is not a physical object and if mind works on digital principles, and I > think it must, then mind could theoretically be duplicated exactly. If the > duplication was not perfect, if it was way way off then it COULD feel the > split, the copy would say to itself, "something just changed, I feel very > differently than I did 2 seconds ago", and he probably wouldn't like the > change because imprecise copies are usually (but not always) worse than the > original not better. > > >> *> So there will be a quick diveregence at the quantum level and that >> will eventually (30sec ?) be amplified to some classical/computational >> difference. * >> > > That's true but I don't see the relevance of randomness (aka a event > without a cause) if your talking about intelligence, consciousness or self > determination. It's as if on rare and random times for no reason whatsoever > a Turing Machine prints a 0 when the rules say it should have printed a 1. > > >> > >> *But no matter how great the difference there's no reason to suppose "the >> split" will be "felt".* >> > > I agree, provided the digital data was copied perfectly or near perfectly. > > John K Clark > > > >
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html : "How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the body? Why did this *bad idea* enter our culture?" [At] some point in prehistory, our ancestors got into the habit of pursuing projects of social cooperation by making marks and noises at each other so as to organize themselves, he said. "That turned out to be a fruitful survival mechanism." Eventually our ancestors developed social norms—such as if you grunted "p" you had to grunt "q," or else explain why you didn't grunt "q"—which we call following the laws of logic and making valid inferences, he added. There was doubtless a genetic mutation somewhere in the background that allowed this neat adaptive trick, he said. But "once that you've seen that a certain neurological twist was necessary to get the process of using marks and noises instead of force as methods of enforcing social cooperation, you have given the only answer that there is to be given to the question, 'What is the relation between the mind and the rest of nature?'" *The "mind" simply is the ability to engage in linguistic behavior,* he said. "If you can talk about things, you can also think about things. But you don't talk about things because you have first thought about things. You didn't have any thoughts before you had language to think the thoughts with." - pt > > -- 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.
