From: Mitchell Porter (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 20:24:26 MST
>Nitpick: The term "Classical AI" usually means GOFAI, which is not the same
>thing as the much weaker claim that *some* computer program can be a strong
>AI. I assume you mean the latter here.
Actually, I meant "classical" as in classical physics - AI that runs
on a classical computer, mind uploading that only uses classical
Tegmark's paper is a starting point, not an endpoint. There are
many ways to produce and conserve entanglement, and we have
no general theory. By my reading of the literature, there isn't
even agreement on how to quantify entanglement in anything
more complex than the two-party case. We have a long way to
go before we understand the dynamics of entanglement, even in
something as everyday as liquid water (e.g. cond-mat/0311628).
>please don't misuse the word "metaphysics"
I don't think I did. I meant metaphysics in the traditional sense
of the word - a general theory of reality. At the moment atomism
and nominalism are in the ascendant, with the new ingredient
being the computational theory of mind. However, the history
of philosophy shows that there are many alternatives, and they
will take on new life if this quantum-brain idea leads anywhere,
because it is a challenge to "mental atomism".
>Why can't we be computers?
The unity of conscious experience, qualia, intrinsic intentionality...
and those are just the problematic features of consciousness
*that we have names for*.
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT