From: CyTG (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2008 - 17:26:10 MST
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
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 <email@example.com>
> 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
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Adam Safron <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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