Re: Michael Anissimov's 'Shock Level Analysis'

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 19:11:36 MST

Brian Phillips wrote:

> Ah. My background is behavioural, self-analysis is traditional. I
> would prefer a Penrose Universe, where sentience is not
> computable. (I am still trying to crack into an understanding
> of how he takes Godel and goes here). It's not especially
> rational but still...

Ah. Having just yesterday had this argument (again) on another list, let me be
perfectly clear in pointing out that the Penrose Hypothesis of physical
structures in neurons that collapse the quantum wave function and thereby give
rise to consciousness is (a) a very pretty supposition, but (b) entirely
unsupported by empirical evidence. Indeed, both Occam's Razor *and* what we
know about non-linear dynamics (particularly in regards to entelechy / potential
epiphenomenon resulting from the dynamic interaction of nodes in any
sufficiently complex / dense networks) argues against it.

> Because I have affective issues (and there's no kinder word for it)
> with Eli's theories I am forced to try and understand that which scares
> me.

This, on the other hand, is entirely understandable --- not in hypothesis, but
in synthesis. :-) ;-)

> And regardless of the hardware surplus.. software is the issue.

Not a foregone conclusion.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT