3 ms·

Can anyone here defend this theory? I'm genuinely curious. It may well be the case that human consciousness relies on quantum effects. But we know that we can s

by darawk 10y ago

Can anyone here defend this theory? I'm genuinely curious. It may well be the case that human consciousness relies on quantum effects. But we know that we can simulate a quantum computer using a regular computer. Which means that in principle, you don't need QM to have consciousness, even if human consciousness makes use of QM. So, while it may or may not be true that the brain uses QM, it doesn't seem to really explain anything of interest. It doesn't make consciousness any less mysterious, or give any real insight into how we might create or understand our own consciousness. Given that (or refute the premises, if you please), why is this theory interesting, relevant, or correct?

ankostis 10y ago
Penrsoe explicitly excludes Quantum Computing from the basis of consciousness. Unfortunately I didn't find the exact interview where we was stating this, but he was clear on this: Quantum Computers are computers after all and he is talking about non-computable physics. The reasons he looks at Quantum it's because it seems to be missing something fro our understanding(the "Reduction of the Unitary evolution"), and he "hopes" that this is non-computable. Does that make sense?
- darawk 10y ago
  Sort of. But fundamentally, if there is a quantum phenomenon that our brains are harnessing, then so too can a quantum computer. So I don't see how he can draw such a distinction, even in theory.
Tloewald 10y ago
I think we're so far from understanding consciousness that having a theory of what makes it work (or even that "if it works, it relies on thing X") is dodgy. E.g. let's suppose I make the claim that some people are conscious and others just seem like they're conscious. Can we test this? Quite respectable people have theorized -- or should I say bloviated? -- that consciousness is merely an emergent property of complex systems. Again, we can't really define what consciousness is, so it's an interesting dinner party conversation starter, but it's not falsifiable.

by darawk 10y ago

ankostis 10y ago

Penrsoe explicitly excludes Quantum Computing from the basis of consciousness. Unfortunately I didn't find the exact interview where we was stating this, but he was clear on this: Quantum Computers are computers after all and he is talking about non-computable physics. The reasons he looks at Quantum it's because it seems to be missing something fro our understanding(the "Reduction of the Unitary evolution"), and he "hopes" that this is non-computable. Does that make sense?

darawk 10y ago
Sort of. But fundamentally, if there is a quantum phenomenon that our brains are harnessing, then so too can a quantum computer. So I don't see how he can draw such a distinction, even in theory.

Tloewald 10y ago

I think we're so far from understanding consciousness that having a theory of what makes it work (or even that "if it works, it relies on thing X") is dodgy. E.g. let's suppose I make the claim that some people are conscious and others just seem like they're conscious. Can we test this? Quite respectable people have theorized -- or should I say bloviated? -- that consciousness is merely an emergent property of complex systems. Again, we can't really define what consciousness is, so it's an interesting dinner party conversation starter, but it's not falsifiable.