From: Thomas Buckner (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 23:26:03 MDT
--- Ben Goertzel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 1) I don't call quantum physics "non-mysterious
> 2) Have you worked out a convincing physics-based
> explanation of consciousness? If so, why aren't you
> sharing it with us? Too busy to take the time?
> -- Ben G
Interesting you mention this. Some of my postings a
few weeks back were a halting, ill-equipped and
unfinished attempt to explain what form I think this
explanation would take. I found similarities in
something Ben had written (and lost the link). I
recall that Ben used the terms 'ons' and 'bag ons'
which I dimly suspect to be isomorphic to what I would
call 'fundamental data patterns' and 'sets of
fundamental data patterns.' For example, an 'on' might
be coded as the necessary packet of information to
tell you what is going on in one Planck area for the
duration of one Planck interval (as this seems to be
the most irreducible bit of reality anyone knows
Am I making any sense?
I tried to extrapolate the idea of
physics-as-computation to include the proposition that
all natural laws are computational or logical rules
which create consistent patterns, and that
consciousness is, in one sense, a computation being
run atop several lower levels of computation.
At the same time, each level is real on its own terms;
feedback loops between levels do exist where allowed.
Ach! if I had another couple hundred IQ points this
might all sort itself out for me...
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT