From: CyTG (cytg.net@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2008 - 17:27:40 MST
ps. also, any measurement upon the real world will have an analog joint
*somewhere*, nothing deterministic about that.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, CyTG <cytg.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> Im so not getting that! Penroses argument that is.
> Seems to me like a construct trying to describe itself in a recursive
> fashion, and fails miserably in a heisenberg uncertainty principle - like
> way.
> I dont think we have to understand it as a whole to create it. We build it
> and it will come ;).
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Krekoski Ross <rosskrekoski@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yah, the argument regarding the degree, or lack of degree of
> > interaction that quantum effects have on a more macro level I suppose holds
> > quite well. My curiosity was somewhat two-pronged -- firstly, are current
> > models regarding the complexity and processing power required for a
> > reasonable simulation of the human brain adequate (ignoring the necessary
> > overhead that a software implementation would entail), and secondly, a more
> > general curiosity regarding the degree of determinism implied if all human
> > reasoning is computable.
> >
> > summarizing penrose's argument:
> >
> > assume that my reasoning capabilities can be simulated by formal system
> > F. for every statement S of F that I determine true, S is a theorem of F,
> > and vice versa. Since I believe F describes my reasoning, I believe F is
> > sound. Since F is sound, G(F) (goedel) is true, but not a theorem of F.
> > however, since F is sound, G(F) is also true. However, G(F) is not a
> > theorem of F, but I know it to be true, therefore F does not describe my
> > reasoning.
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Adam Safron <asafron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ross,
> > > Quantum entanglement is not considered to be an important factor by
> > > most well-regarded neuroscientists.
> > > With ~100 billion neurons and 10^14 synapses, the brain is plenty
> > > complex to explain human cognition/behavior without resorting to
> > > exotic physical properties. And more importantly, no one has come up
> > > with a reasonable account for how quantum entanglement would impact
> > > information processing. Quantum explanations for the mind are both
> > > unnecessary and unhelpful.
> > > -adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 2, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Krekoski Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why has there not been any discussion that I can find, regarding the
> > > > very real possibility that quantum entanglement plays a large role
> > > > in the functioning of the human brain?
> > > > It certainly is a factor in the low-level motion of particles, and
> > > > in a chaotic system where local disturbances can lead to large
> > > > systemic changes, such as cascade effects in neurons, it seems to be
> > > > a significant oversight to not at least acknowledge it's likely
> > > > presence. It has significant implications for the processing
> > > > capacity of the human brain since it multiplies the number of
> > > > interactions by a significant number of orders of magnitude, and is
> > > > also quite relevant therefore in talking about at what point we have
> > > > the machine capacity with current architecture to begin to simulate
> > > > things.
> > > >
> > > > Rgds
> > > >
> > > > Ross
> > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT