[ExI] Destructive uploading.
jonkc at bellsouth.net
Sun Sep 11 16:45:47 UTC 2011
On Sat, 9/10/11, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
"Again this is another assumption. The quantum information in a wave function i.e. the true states of a quantum system, are hidden and unknowable by theory."
That is incorrect. I'll be dammed if I can see what it has to do with identity but the quantum wave function of a particle IS knowable and it's entirely deterministic too; but the wave function does not contain as much information as Newton would like, if you square the function you get the probability the particle will be in a certain spot with a given momentum. You can know all about the quantum wave function associated with a particle, but that's not enough to know exactly where the particle is and how its moving.
"Unless you have proof that the mind is a classical physical system then it is an assumption that the mind can be represented by classical information "
Unless you have proof that the tooth fairy does not exist then its just an assumption that she does not. There is not one shred of evidence that mind has anything to do with quantum mechanics, not one. The "reasoning" seems to be that we don't know much about mind and we don't know much about quantum mechanics so they must be related. I don't find that sort of deduction impressive.
"You are not just information; you are information in context, in runtime, constantly interacting with everything around you. "
You change over time so the information that defined you ten seconds ago is different than the information that defines you now. So what?
"Our emails are pretty fungible but some information like missile launch codes or Spike's uber-primes are not."
I don't have a thousand tons of gold but it's fungible, I don't have the missile launch codes but that's fungible too, one Email listing them is as good as another.
"I am suggesting that if the mind is simply classical information, it would have likely been adequately explained by now by the likes of Euler, Boltzman, Turing, or Shannon."
Expecting to see a teeshirt with the equation of the General Theory of Mind on it is as unrealistic as expecting a General Theory of Weather. At the lowest most fundamental level Newton adequately explained the weather, but we want it explained at a higher level and that's vastly more difficult. There probably isn't one huge new idea that will explain intelligence, but a billion or two little hacks and tricks and algorithms and rules of thumb.
"But the parts themselves are ultimately atoms and electrons."
Yes, and atoms and electrons are the ultimate in fungibility, electrons have no scratches on them to tell them apart, if you've seen one electron you've seen them all.
"Why would you assume you yourself are not some superpositioned quantum superstate of a mindboggling but finite number of entangled quantum systems?"
OK fine, I'm a mind boggling but finite number of entangled quantum systems; but in spite of all of that when I woke up this morning I felt like I was the same person that went to bed last night. Quantum mechanics or no quantum mechanics, why would you expect a duplicate or an upload to feel any different? And if he didn't feel like you who would he feel like?
"Classical physics had every opportunity to explain mind. It has failed to date."
Failed? It has not finished the job but it has made enormous progress, just look at Watson.
"What makes you so certain that mind is not itself a separate special case of Quantum Mechanics distinct from Classical Physics."
1) There is no evidence for it being true, none zero zilch nada.
2) There is no theoretical explanation on how it could possibly be. Quantum entanglement is hard enough to achieve at one ten thousandth of a degree above absolute zero, nobody can explain how such a extraordinarily delicate state could survive in the rough and tumble environment of the brain at its standard operating temperature, a scorchingly hot 310 degrees Kelvin.
3) If the human mind operates on quantum mechanical principles its odd that mind finds quantum mechanics to be odd, and very nonintuitive.
4) If the human mind operates on quantum mechanical principles its odd that standard classical computers are better at calculating the probable future state of a quantum system than human beings are. The best thing about quantum computers is that they're good at simulating quantum systems, but people aren't.
"What if you are not bits but qubits? Qubits are both zero *and* one at the same time until you back them into a corner by measuring them, then they become zero or one."
I don't want to imply that quantum computing is not important because it may be, if a practical quantum computer can ever be made it could bring about the Singularity as swiftly as full blown Nanotechnology, but I see no reason to think it has anything to do with the human brain, or rather what that brain does, mind.
"Perhaps if uploaded to a quantum computer."
In the unlikely event that quantum computations are occurring in the hothouse of the human brain then they can certainly be achieved in a machine.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat