Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jimgm
From: jimgm@netcom.com (jim miller)
Subject: Re: Randomness and free will
Message-ID: <jimgmDM7s8D.DM0@netcom.com>
Organization: bilaterally symmetric
References: <823175308.29461@ray.division.co.uk> <1996Feb1.192126.28158@nb.rockwell.com> <4evu83$neg@longwood.cs.ucf.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 19:17:00 GMT
Lines: 50
Sender: jimgm@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:169012 comp.ai:36724 comp.ai.philosophy:37385 sci.philosophy.meta:24148


clarke@longwood.cs.ucf.edu (Tom Clarke) wrote:

>>A random robot is still a robot.
>
>This is an open question.  If the randomness of the robot is
>via a random number generator, then the various results about
>the capabilities of Turing machines + random number generator
>show that no new and interesting behavior should be expected -
>the Turing machine (robot) would still behavre mechanically
>(like a robot).
>
>If the randomness arises from some sort of quantum hardware
>making essential use of quantum coherence effects, then there
>are no theorems yet relating what the quantum machine can computer
>versus conventional Turing machines.  For example quantum computers
>may be able to solve NP problems, maybe not.
>A robotic machine using quantum phenomena thus might be able to
>utilize the solutions of problems beyond conventional computers
>and thus exhibit non-mechanical or non-robotic behavior.
>
>These are special times in computational research.


Overlooking the highly speculative nature of these arguments, and
the "wouldn't it be neat if this were true!" feel, and the sequence
of big if's and unexplained conclusions (I like the part about
non-conventional computer means you can have non-mechanical behavior,
QED)...getting back to the original argument, if humans are to have
capitalized on this "quantum hardware" to gain volition, how did
such a paradigm-changing mechanism enter into human evolution?
Something special about biomatter, or just human biomatter?  So
much of anatomy, cell processes, reproduction, inheritance is
already so well understood using "conventional" mechanistic science,
does it seem likely to you that an appeal to "quantum hardware" is
necessary to explain higher brain functions?

Speculation like this is nothing new.  Some physicists have been
churning out various takes on this for years now, since quantum
theory was worked out and they saw in it almost mystical possibilities
for recapturing a cozy view of human existence.  Depends on which
book is currently in vogue; reviews in _Omni_, of course.

-jim

-- 
Jim Miller______515 Arbor Drive #6______San Diego______California_____92103
jimgm@netcom.com.....jgm@umcc.umich.edu.....http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jgm/
(619) AWL-SWAP  * San Diego County's Premiere Dealer in Used Leatherworking     
                    Equipment * Buy-Sell-Trade * Since 1994 *
