Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Function, Reduction, and Quantum Mechanics
Message-ID: <D6ML5u.7GL@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <3la5qr$86@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <3loqnh$fuv@scorpio.develop.bsis.com> <mws.17.00335B80@pond.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 18:10:42 GMT
Lines: 60
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:2979 comp.ai.philosophy:26620

In article <mws.17.00335B80@pond.com>, Fred Mitchell <mws@pond.com> wrote:
:
>I would go as far as to say that outside of some stochastic contributions and 
>providing a non-linear medium, QM has nothing to do with consciousness.
>
Possibly, but do we know enough about cosciousness (Dennett's CE 
notwithstanding) to be so sure of this?

>Consciousness arises out of the _terribly_ complex dynamic interchange of 
>information between "components" of the human mind-brain. Consciousness is 
>therefore nothing more than the billions of neurons in action. Upon which 
>exist layers and layers of components whose synergistic, or "emergent" effect 
>is to produce what we call consciousness.
>
Again (just to play a devil's advocate) - do we know enough about consciousness
to make such a categorical statement?

>If we were to replace, one by one, each neuron in the brain by a 
>functional silicon equivalent, your consciousness would then be transferred, 
>bit by bit (no pun intended!) into a silicon replica. Just try the thought 
>experiment! :-)
>
The success of this experiment is based on the assumption that we know
everything relevent about workings of a neuron. Is this really so?
Is this also established that there are no indirect electromagnetic and 
chemical couplings between neurons? Would a brain with silicon neurons be
influenced by alcohol or other fun stuff? The thought experiment tells me NO.

>In short, your consciousness can be likened to a unique algorithm, which can 
>be implemented in nearly any programming language and run on any Turing 
>machine-like system. Of course, it might help to have billions of Turing 
>machines running in parallel!!!!
>
>Then the question now becomes: can all of the relevant features of a neuron be 
>duplicated by a Turing machine? If so, can N Turing machines be arranged and 
>interconnected in such a fashion as to duplicate the workings of the N neurons 
>which the Turing machines imitate (connections themselves must also be 
>implementable on Turing machines)? If all of the answers to these questions 
>are "YES", then human consciousness is nothing more than information 
>processing. Of the highest order, granted, but nothing more, no mysterious 
>forces are involved, and diving into some wierd explanation based on QM or 
>anything else outside of the realm of information science is unnecessary.
>
All true, but the answers to your questions above are far from being obviously
affirmative.  Hence your categorical statements at the begining are far from
certain.

>Your criticisms are welcome.
>
:
>Fred Mitchell
>mws@pond.com
>A-Live Free or A-Die

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
