From: John K Clark (johnkc@well.com)
Date: Fri Dec 13 1996 - 11:22:14 MST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience@pobox.com> Wrote:
>If somebody proved that consciousness required temporal or
>physical continuity as opposed to a discrete binary
>architecture, why would this have any religious implications?
Suppose I'm wrong, suppose the mind is not the product of digital information
but is caused by something else, call it Process X. Let's examen this
mysterious Process X with a flow chart.
1) Is what the Process X does complex ? If yes go to 2 if no explain how
to reconcile that with experience, both objective and subjective.
2) Is Process X itself complex? If yes go to 3 if no then religious people
are right, the soul exists, science can't explain it and we're wasting our
time with logic and trying to learn how the brain operates.
3) Is Process X made of parts? If yes go to 4 if no explain how something can
be complex yet have no structure.
4) Does the Process X operate in an uncoordinated, incoherent manner?
If no go to 5 if yes explain how to reconcile that with experience, both
objective and subjective.
5) Do the parts communicate among themselves? If yes go to 6 if no explain
how coordination is possible without communication.
6) Is a part that changes in only one way ( a bit) the simplest part of the
mind? If yes go to 7 if no then something that does not change at all is
the essence of the mind and religious people are right, the soul exists,
science can't explain it and were wasting our time with logic and trying
to learn how the brain operates.
7) Is Process X information processing ? If yes then I'm right, if no then
explain what the difference is.
>the whole Halting Problem says nothing about my understanding
>how my mental architecture works, just my predicting what it
>will do.
I would maintain that there is a direct relationship between the degree you
understand something and the degree you can predict what it will do, in fact,
that's what "understand" means.
>I know how my computer works, but it still beats me at
>arithmetic.
Nobody understands how a computer works, if we did we wouldn't need them for
arithmetic.
>the things [Quantum Computers] are SO damned useful and
>there's no theoretical reason why it shouldn't work.
I agree that nobody has found a show stopper yet, but there's still a lot we
don't know about Quantum decoherence, error correction and how to program in
Quantum logic. At the current rate of progress I think in 5 years, maybe less,
we'll know for sure if it's possible or not, after that it would just be a
(very difficult) engineering project and the Universe will never be the same.
It would make Drexler's Nanotechnology look like the stone age, but I would
still say there is a 40% chance that such a machine is impossible. Ask me
again in 5 years.
>As I understand it, an STM should suffice for manufacturing
>the workhorse quantum dots. We might have it by next year.
Quantum dots have already been made, but it's a long way from there to a
Quantum Computer. A Quantum Computer is FAR more than a computer that has
parts that operate according to Quantum principles, throw away all your
programming books, the very logical architecture of the machine would operate
according to Quantum principles. When I hear about Quantum computers my gut
says that the Universe must not allow such a bizarre object to exist, and yet
advances in the last year point strongly in the opposite direction.
>General relativity says the speed of light is whatever I
>make it.
I don't know what you mean, General Relativity says the space-time distance
between 2 events is the same in any frame of reference.
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBMrGkOX03wfSpid95AQFs1gTws1RfN3lgSSc6Cp0VWVT/yj9KPO0SitO6
Mpv9Ab5qu4uOc5ZaR2X4/KTTc3NP9TPEMg6V6iq7cgVcfjfOlOR8cjU9uzR7a1W7
q9CxE8JtBcjsDh+AQDLxcEbXS2IKTPZrC5ax3szj1LzCe0XfQOcxTZ67SPJmKxP5
QvNS3jjfsakt+Gxw7HT+xyNO66IKL81yqXgbiT4tA6otA0cRBkY=
=/sdr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:53 MST