5 ms·

Other than popular science writers or physicists thinking they understand everything because they understand QCD, who said consciousness is stuck at a dead end

Other than popular science writers or physicists thinking they understand everything because they understand QCD, who said consciousness is stuck at a dead end for a lack of theories? The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness, we just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove the same. Connectomics research is still at its infancy unfortunately. Trying to invoke QC where we haven’t even gotten the bandwidth to prove or disprove a far simpler theory seems like a bad idea.

philipswood 5y ago
Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing. This gives them an unusual take on observers and consciousness. While everyone else tend to be happy with "consciousness is a physical computation", they tend to need/want something more. As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality.
- RobertoG 5y ago
  >>"As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality." That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). So, he doesn't need any wave-function-collapse magic to explain quantum mechanics. >>"Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing." That's very insightful.
  - philipswood 5y ago
    >> That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). He considers a working QC as basically an experimental confirmation of the many-worlds interpretation. Something like: "So tell me, these amazing parallel computations - where exactly do you say that they are being computed again if not in the parallel worlds?" There is a nice interview with him in Wired that touches this briefly: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computin... Check his answer to: "So what prompted you to start thinking about quantum computing?" My take is that for him the QC started as a thought experiment to get a quantum observer to sidestep the whole wavefunction collapse by a classical observer problem. >> That's very insightful. Thanks.
bencollier49 5y ago
You're redefining consciousness here to mean physical awareness in the brain, though. That is not the same thing as conscious experience. Using the physical material of the brain at the electrochemical level to try to explain the hard problem of consciousness is a bit like trying to use the water cycle to explain the weak force in nuclear physics. I'm talking here about the hard problem of consciousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness The only solutions which don't involve a fundamental reworking of physics basically end up denying that consciousness (as phenomenal experience) exists at all.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > You're redefining consciousness here to mean physical awareness in the brain, though. Where?
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    > The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness. This is "strong reductionism" which comes under the heading of "Rejection of the Problem" in the linked article. GP is essentially denying that the hard problem exists.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Try reading that sentence with the definition of consciousness you'd normally use. It seems like you're assuming the author intended to redefine the word, but I still don't see where that redefinition took place.
      - bencollier49 5y ago
        What I mean to say is that the author subscribes to a theory of consciousness "strong reductionism" which redefines it to mean "things we can observe", in as much as it states that it solves for all thing which 'need to be explained'.

philipswood 5y ago

Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing. This gives them an unusual take on observers and consciousness. While everyone else tend to be happy with "consciousness is a physical computation", they tend to need/want something more. As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality.

RobertoG 5y ago
>>"As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality." That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). So, he doesn't need any wave-function-collapse magic to explain quantum mechanics. >>"Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing." That's very insightful.
- philipswood 5y ago
  >> That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). He considers a working QC as basically an experimental confirmation of the many-worlds interpretation. Something like: "So tell me, these amazing parallel computations - where exactly do you say that they are being computed again if not in the parallel worlds?" There is a nice interview with him in Wired that touches this briefly: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computin... Check his answer to: "So what prompted you to start thinking about quantum computing?" My take is that for him the QC started as a thought experiment to get a quantum observer to sidestep the whole wavefunction collapse by a classical observer problem. >> That's very insightful. Thanks.

bencollier49 5y ago

You're redefining consciousness here to mean physical awareness in the brain, though. That is not the same thing as conscious experience. Using the physical material of the brain at the electrochemical level to try to explain the hard problem of consciousness is a bit like trying to use the water cycle to explain the weak force in nuclear physics. I'm talking here about the hard problem of consciousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness The only solutions which don't involve a fundamental reworking of physics basically end up denying that consciousness (as phenomenal experience) exists at all.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> You're redefining consciousness here to mean physical awareness in the brain, though. Where?
- bencollier49 5y ago
  > The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness. This is "strong reductionism" which comes under the heading of "Rejection of the Problem" in the linked article. GP is essentially denying that the hard problem exists.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Try reading that sentence with the definition of consciousness you'd normally use. It seems like you're assuming the author intended to redefine the word, but I still don't see where that redefinition took place.
    - bencollier49 5y ago
      What I mean to say is that the author subscribes to a theory of consciousness "strong reductionism" which redefines it to mean "things we can observe", in as much as it states that it solves for all thing which 'need to be explained'.