Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?

On Sep 2, 11:19 am, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alpha <omegazero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sun, 31 Aug 2008:
<snip rehash>

Remember, Many-worlds is a return to the classical, pre-quantum view
of the universe

That's an odd description to make of a _quantum_mechanics_ theory!
You think it is "pre-quantum"?  What bizarre ideas you have...

Not if you understand what I said - which you evidently did not; goes
to your breaddth and depth in this area. MW *objectifies* the
probability distribution - the PD exists objectively and decomposes
dynamically into indishtinguishable branches at the macroscopic
level. That is, historically, a pre-quantum view of the Universe (you
may have come across some of the history of physical thought - but
perhaps not.)

AAR, Read Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics by H. P. Stapp.


in which all the mathematical entities of a physical theory are real.

Well, that part is true.

That it presupposes no observer effect is a result of its going-in
treatment of the object of QM.  That the wavefunction does not merely
encode the all the information about an object, but has an
observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object.

Yes, yes, of course.

        Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go
        away.

        -- Philip K. ***

That is a tall tall metaphysical assumption going in. That the worlds
(bifurcated objects) all exist simultaneously in a non- interacting linear
superposition (that the the other Everett-worlds occupy the same space and
time as we do.) is a fantastical, un- testable non-scientifc assumption..

Look, there's no point on _this_ newsgroup to attempt to debate and resolve
interpretations of quantum mechanics.

OK. But it is fun to discuss and this group, as most groups deal in
OT stuff all the time.


The only point worth noting is that the very-well-confirmed theories of
quantum mechanics DO NOT REQUIRE a special place in the universe for
observers and/or consciousness.

As to the final say of QM:

Let us start with the contention that emergent, biological, open,
autopoetic, self-organizing, dynamical adaptive systems are not weakly
or strongly redicible to

the most detailed, predictive theory phyiscs has (QM), nor to
statistical mechanics nor thermodynamics (That has been demonstrated
many times; some very clever people over the last several decades has
tried and failed to generate descriptions of systems chracterized by
the modifiers I used above, using the equations, idioms and
descriptions of physics proper.) I have several refs if you want
them.). So, we know physics deals
in closed systems and not open, far_from_equlibrium systems. Indeed,
there is not even ONE inferential chain between physics (QM or
otherwise) and biology. Even weak
reductionism is inadequate, let alone strong reduction, for it is
physics that has given way, as an extremely
degenerate, special case of systems description in general, when
confronted by the requirements of biological descriptions. Even
protein folding - much less demanding of QM than biological systems,
does not allow one to remove the active site from the whole. So one
EMW interpretation of QM, which has its own problems, does not mean
that the special place or indeed, the special connection of QM and
consciousness is negated. So while one cannot reduce consciousness
(and perhaps intelligent functionality) to atoms or QM probabilitiy
distributions (in this or any other Universe), there is absolutely no
reason to think that JUST BECAUSE there is an alternate
*theory_cum_interpretation vis QM, that that is the one we should go
with. One might as well, in this case, go with FSMs being the creator
of the Unvierse.



While there may be SOME interpretations of QM that do have such a special
place, all that we in this group need to know is that there are OTHER very
legitimate interpretations of QM that DON'T require consciousness to be
"special".

See ending comments.


Hence, there is no lesson from QM that can be brought to our investigations
here of AI.

This is ludicrous on its face. Read Stapp's work for one. Not to
mention that if we want AI and if we want to see if we can pattern AI
on brain_workings in some cases (as it is one hellava role model!!!),
then we should pay attention to LEGITMATE QM EFFECTs in the brain as
well as hormones, APs, and so forth. If a proximal cause of the AP is
a QM effect, then why would one simply dismiss that as irrelvent.
Perhaps you do not have the background in either the broader sciences,
or biology and chemistry to understand this.


You simply assure us that EMW must be correct and that observer effects are
not needed to account for some QM features.  You should read other
physicists POVs on the subject of QM interpretations to round out your
views; your assurances are not convincing.

There is absolutely no question that observer effects are not NEEDED to
account for QM experiments.

But for the intepretation of what those experiments *mean*, it is an
advantageous object to have handy when confronted with cerrtain
aspects of what the equations are saying.


That's a separate question of what the truth actually is.  (The truth happens
to be MWI, but we don't need to argue that here.)  All that is important for
us in this group, is that QM does not logically imply observer effects.

According to ONE interpretation that is not held by most physicists.
And one that has the preferred basis problem.

And one that defies Occam's Razor to the ridiculous extreme.



        -- Don
___________________________________________________________________________­____
Don Geddis                  http://don.geddis.org/ ;             d...@xxxxxxxxxx
I like to go down to the dog pound and pretend that I've found my dog.  Then I
tell them to kill it anyway because I already gave away all of his stuff.  Dog
people sure don't have a sense of humor.  -- Imitation Deep Thoughts [Age 14]

.