On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent but as >> for consciousness, how did you determine that it was not conscious? For >> that matter how did you determine that I am conscious? But let's get out of >> the consciousness quagmire for a moment so I can ask you a question, >> leaving behind the interpretation of the experiment concentrating only on >> its results, if it was actually performed as described do you think >> interference bands would be on that photographic plate or would there be >> no such bands? I would bet money the bands would be there on that plate >> even though there's no longer any which way information remaining. So, what >> would you put your money on, bands or no bands? >> > > > *I would guess the interference bands would be present exactly because, ex > hypothesi, the which-way information was quantum erased.* > So an intelligent and presumably conscious being once existed that knew which slot all the electrons went through, but those interference bands still showed up anyway. Don't you find that a little strange? If Many Worlds is wrong and that being didn't exist in another world, then where did it exist? >> If interference bands are on that photographic plate then either Many >> Worlds is correct or a rock is just as likely to be conscious as one of >> your fellow human beings because intelligent behavior would tell you >> nothing about consciousness. But if there are no bands I would immediately >> concede and say Many Worlds must be wrong. What outcome would make you >> concede? > > *> Concede what? * > What experimental evidence would make you concede that your theory that Many Worlds must be wrong, is wrong. Or is your theory by its very nature unprovable? My theory that Many Worlds is less wrong than other quantum interpretations at least has the virtue of being capable of being proven wrong. Let me put the question to you this way, what conclusion would you draw if you saw interference bands on that photographic plate, and what conclusion would you draw if you DID NOT SEE interference bands on that photographic plate? > *> You're the one that cast the hypothetical in terms of consciousness.* > I only said that because some (but not me) claim Quantum Mechanics has something to do with consciousness, so if you want to test that claim experimentally the first thing you're going to need is something people can agree on that is conscious; and I don't think you're ever going to find anything better for that "something" than a being that behaves intelligently. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> rroo -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0urKFNHY_uv2Ue1TJQB%3DruSVzuTJG4y_JOdL1CbjCHXw%40mail.gmail.com.
