Quantum Computing - Consciousness?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:19 pm

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:20 pm » by Towelie


wouldnt all biological processes also be described as switches then, for example doesnt something have to activate our immune system, wouldnt this be like a switch going on to activate it.

I said that the assumption that this isnt a process is wrong, and yes making assumptions can be described as the wrong way, i dont assume anything i posed everything as a question.
Kill em all and let god sort them out!

Atheism is a non-prohet organisation.

Initiate
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:19 am

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:22 pm » by sawltydawg


it is actually entirely feasible that a neural network computer could actually develop consciousness....not just a system of switches
out..cya

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:28 am

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:24 pm » by Mugenroshi8


Nice post Towlie

sawltydawg wrote:both of the darks are however fully accepted as existing by most schools of science
they have to exist otherwise regular matter and energy could not


That's faulty logic my friend, and as a scientist you know that already. One does not prove the existence of the other, especially given that we don't have to tools to observe the assumption in question. It then becomes a philosophic question, not a scientific one. Mixing the two is what got Science so far from it's original intent to begin with.

Basing one assumption off another and continuing that process until a theory makes sense according to other existing theories, is not science.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:19 pm

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:28 pm » by Towelie


Theres an experiment i think its called SNAP(cant remember what it stands for lol) but its a way to measure dark energy using super novas.
Kill em all and let god sort them out!

Atheism is a non-prohet organisation.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:53 pm

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:31 pm » by Bettyboolean


the switch analogy is useful for describing some biological process

however when it comes to conciousness, as Roger Searle has convincingly argued

Chinese room argument

Searle's Chinese room argument tries to show that strong AI is false. But how can anyone show it to be false if we don't know what the human mind's program is? How can one know it a priori - before any empirical tests have been given? This is the ingenious part of Searle's argument. The idea is to construct a machine which would be a zombie (ie. not mental) with any program. And if this machine would exist, it is the case that strong AI would be false, since no program would ever make it mental.

But how to construct such an machine? And worse than that, how would we actually know if it has thoughts or not? This is the second problem which Searle solves by putting ourselves to implement the machine. If we implement the program, we would know if it is mental or not. Therefore the Chinese room argument has a thought experiment part. This is presented next.

Suppose you are in a closed room which has two slots. From the slot 1 somebody gives you Chinese characters which you don't recognize as words ie. you don't know what these small characters mean. You also has a huge rulebook which you use to construct another Chinese characters from those that were given to you, and finally you split these new characters out of the slow 2. In short:

1. Chinese characters comes in, 2. you use the rulebook and construct more Chinese characters and 3. you put those new characters out.

In its essence, this is just like a computer program which has an input, it computes something and finally splits an output. Suppose further that the rulebook is such that people outside this room can discuss with you in Chinese. For example, they send you a question 'how are you' and you, following the rulebook, would give a meaningful answer. So far, the computer program simulates human being which understands Chinese.

One can even ask 'do you understand Chinese?' from the room and it can answer 'yes, of course' despite of the fact that you, inside the room, would not understand a word of what is going on. You are just following rules, not understanding Chinese.

The crucial part is this: given any rulebook (=program), you would never understand the meanings of those characters you manipulate. Searle has constructed a machine which cannot ever be mental. Changing the program means only to change the rulebook and you can clearly see that it does not increase you understanding. Remember that the strong artificial intelligence states that given the right program, any machine running it would be mental. Well, says Searle, this Chinese room would not understand anything... there must be something wrong in strong AI.
Last edited by Bettyboolean on Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage

Initiate
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:19 am

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:32 pm » by sawltydawg


the existence of dark matter and energy is far beyond the purely theoretical phase
were not talking about string theory here
in fact the existence of the darks is entirely dependent on regular energy and matter
visa versa

no philosophy here just science
out..cya

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:53 pm

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:38 pm » by Bettyboolean


sawltydawg wrote:the existence of dark matter and energy is far beyond the purely theoretical phase
were not talking about string theory here
in fact the existence of the darks is entirely dependent on regular energy and matter
visa versa

no philosophy here just science


that is neither science or philosophy, it is theology

you state that matter is dependant for its existence on something that has never been observed empirically, you may as well invoke a divine presence
ImageImage

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:19 pm

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:47 pm » by Towelie


When posed with a puzzle ie- 1+_=3 it is possible to make an educated guess as to what the most probable answer is.
Anyone looking seriously at the subject of consciousness can not ignore facts like the ammount of processors in the human brain and say that they have nothing to do with the process, if consciousness does not require processors why do we have them.
Is that MITs Roger Searle that has a theory out now that fully includes quantum theory into his work?
Kill em all and let god sort them out!

Atheism is a non-prohet organisation.

Initiate
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:19 am

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 7:54 pm » by sawltydawg


theology is the study of gods ..i fail to see whet that has to do with physics
i cant believe we are having this discussion
dark matter and dark energy exist
smarter people then us have already determined this

the expansion rate of the universe is determined by dark energy
no philosophy
just math and physics
you cant see the wind but you can see its effect everything around it
if we were trying to determine the intention of the darks...then we would be entering into the realm of theology/philosophy
out..cya

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:28 am

PostThu Aug 27, 2009 8:01 pm » by Mugenroshi8


Okay then, how about this: not a single one of you in this thread can agree on what consciousness is (how can you? None of you have even taken the time to explain that to one another), so where do you want to go from here?

Everything you said is based on assumption, and no, neither in philsophy, science, or any other field that uses logic as a platform for clear communication, would agree that 'because one exists, it naturally follows it's counter does as well.' That my friend, is a weak philosophical argument, and it didn't work for God, and it's not working for the concept of consciousness, which ya'll still have not discussed and made clear.

All I've heard so far here, is the human brain. What about consciousness within a fly on the all, are you saying they do not have consciousness? I'm referring to your equation based on energy output and relevance to the human brain.

Does the statement: Because when the brain turns off, there is no conscious activity, prove scientifically that consciousness is only found in the brain? This is not semantics, this is basic philosophy, the mommy and daddy to which all this scientific fact stems from; which is in fact, nothing more than assumptions.

No provable points here. Very intelligent, philosophical speculations, yes, most certainly, and because I respect everyone in this thread, I am tickled we've taken the time to speak on this topic! But there has been no science as yet. Which is fine, there cannot be science if this kind of discussion doesn't precede it, but let's not make the mistake of thinking anything said so far represents anything even close to science, or the facts every theory dreams of reaching.

Just keeping it real, this is how good discussions stay alive, and most importantly, stay honest. That's what science is about yes?
Image


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook