Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Function, Reduction, and Quantum Mechanics
Message-ID: <D6u59r.L7n@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <3la5qr$86@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <mws.17.00335B80@pond.com> <D6ML5u.7GL@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <mws.24.00498740@pond.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 20:08:15 GMT
Lines: 128
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:3028 comp.ai.philosophy:26753

In article <mws.24.00498740@pond.com>, Fred Mitchell <mws@pond.com> wrote:
>In article <D6ML5u.7GL@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
>>Subject: Re: Cognitive Function, Reduction, and Quantum Mechanics
>>Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 18:10:42 GMT
>
>>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?
>
>I don't think we have to know _everything_ about consciousness to be able to 
>make certain stipulations upon which it is based. If we study the components 
>(the neurons, for ex.) and the physics/chemistry of their interactions, I 
>would say we can make a fairly safe assumption and test any questions to the 
>contrary.
>
I did not say _everything_, I asked if we know _enough_. So far there is very
little connection between consciousness and physics/chemistry of the brain
components, practicaly nothing beyond speculations. If you disagree, please
provide arguments for the statement: "QM has nothing to do with consciousness".
You are surely aware that some people claim that there is strong evidence that
QM is essential for the consciousness. Not that I buy their arguments, but
there is no way (which I know) to unambiguously disprove them.

>>>Consciousness arises out of the _terribly_ complex dynamic interchange of 
>>>information between "components" of the human mind-brain.
>...
>>Again (just to play a devil's advocate) - do we know enough about consciousness
>>to make such a categorical statement?
>
>We may never know "enough", but that should not stop us.
>
This is no reason, however, to categoricaly state as a 'scientific fact' 
something which is based to a large degree on faith.

>>>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.
>
>It could be, if receptors for alcohol were put in place. Actually, there are 
>things far more fun to be influenced by than mere alcohol.
>
From what I know about models of neurons for these receptors to be put in place
the models would have to be substantially changed. We would deal then with
something different then an interconnected network of silicon chips.

>As far as non-local influences by electromagnetic couplings, the forces would 
>really be too weak to play a significant role, else we'd all be nuts now, 
>awashed in a sea of electromagnetic radiation all up and down the spectrum. 
>The enviromental EM noise would drown out any feeble couplings between 
>non-local neurons, and since this EM noise only became prevalent this century, 
>there would've been no time to adjust to it.
>
Perhaps you know about the above much more than me, but it is possible to
detect signals below threshold of noise. It certainly is possible to detect
outside the brain EM activity going on inside. Is there an experimental
evidence that neurons are not sensitive to the EM fields they themselves 
create?

>There are obvious non-local chemical effects. They are called hormones. But 
>their effects can be replicated eaisly enough. I'm not convinced of their 
>absolute importance to consciousness, even though some of them do influence it.
>
Prozac? 
>
>>>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.
>
>What you really mean is that they have not yet been difinitively verified by 
>experiment. However, we are beginning to enter the realm of things that are 
>diffucult to prove via experiment (like superstrings, for ex.) but I really 
>think the way to proceed is to make fundamental assumptions (axioms) based on 
>the current knowledge at hand and to go forth and develop the science, which 
>will eventually either demonstrate that we're right after all (most likely), 
>or show us where we went wrong. We cannot wait until we have a "full 
>understanding" of consciousness.

I fully understand a need to make _working_ assumptions in order to proceed.
However, claiming that the current knowledge at hand justifies treating these
assumptions as articles of faith seems to me to be an unnecessary arrogance 
which gives science a bad name. 
>
>In short, we have to make a "leap of faith". I see no other way barring 

I do not see any need for a "leap of faith" - I'd much prefer to keep 'faith'
out of science. 'Faith' has a tendency to make people inflexible, why not to
be just pragmatic? To proceed we have to decide on a course of action. Given
the present evidence the course of action you are advocating does indeed seem
to be most sensible, but let's be open minded.

>(in)human experimentation. Perhaps death-row immates can make a final, 
>positive contribution to society if they volunteer. But what level-headed 
>scientist would experiment on them? And can they be trusted? And even at that, 
>would that teach us all we need to know?
>
>-Fred
>
>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
