Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciouness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics, Consciousness, and AI
Message-ID: <CzqJD0.2Lq@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <39r5bv$2ci@walton.maths.tcd.ie> <CzFroG.9ME@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <CzHA9x.CHH@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:26:59 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <CzHA9x.CHH@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <CzFroG.9ME@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <39r5bv$2ci@walton.maths.tcd.ie> ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey) writes:
>>>jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <BILL.94Oct21154212@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>>>>>zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (Dave Budd) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>   I read a report in my newspaper yesterday of some experiments at a UK 
>>>>>   university which appear to support the theory that quantum effects are 
>>>>>   involved in consciousness.  [ . . . ] A paper is forthcoming, but I 
>>>>>   negelected to note which journal, though it's one I'm sure several 
>>>>>   readers of comp.ai.philosophy will read.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>What is the basis of the belief that the discovery of quantum effects
>>>in the brain would cast doubt on AI? Is it that people think quantum
>>>effects cannot be reproduced by a computer?
>>>
>>>If so, this belief is surely false, since quantum phenomena are
>>>described by the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics and can
>>>therefore be simulated on a computer. 
>>
>>So?  What does the simulation accomplish?  Simulating an effect
>>doesn't involve that very effect happening.  So if that very effect
>>is required, simulating it isn't enough.
>
>How would we ever know if the very effect is required for, say, consciousness?

A good question.  It depends, in part, on how strong we take "know"
to be.  It seems to me that we might have a scientific conclusion
to that effect.

Nonetheless, if the effect is required, simulating it isn't enough.
Why is that so difficult to accept?

>Do we (or you) have or even can imagine any direct way of testing for it?
>Simulation could perhaps accomplish the same net final result as the
>real effect (say QM correlations) and what sense would it be then to say
>that one system is "thinking" and the other is not?

There's no problem if the final result *is* the same.  But if all
we have is that some aspects are the same (or, maybe, simular),
it may depend on what those aspects are.

>Would you say that only a "real" piano plays music, those electronic keyboards
>make similar sounds, but this is not really music? And what about sounds
>coming out of loudspeakers of your CD system? Is this not music, because it
>is produced in a different way?

Would I say that a display of musical notation is too loud?
Do I think a fire animation on my screen will burn me if I touch it?

Why suppose the we can settle this by analogies?

-- jd
