X-Message-Number: 11599 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:54:12 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Replies to Bob and Thomas Both Bob Ettinger and Thomas Donaldson have some interesting responses to some recent postings of mine. Due to time constraints, etc., I am unable to respond in full here, but will limit my comments to a few points. Thomas Donaldson, #11588, says, >To Mike Perry: > >I don't recall denigrating anybody's expertise. The word I used in my message #11583 is "question" not "denigrate," viz.: >On the subject of Deutsch's level of expertise, which Thomas Donaldson seems >inclined to question (#11570), I think it is probably considerable. And what you actually say, in message #11570, replying to Bob Ettinger, is: >Deutsch has not actually done any striking physics of which I am aware. >The simple fact that he's written books means no more than that he's >written books. So have I and so have you. If that is not "questioning" his level of expertise, in some sense, then my apologies. But as for "striking physics," Deutsch is credited on the dust jacket of his book with largely founding the field of quantum computing, and that seems "striking" to me. >As for quantum mechanics being involved in how our mind works, I will say >that so far no good experimental evidence of which I am aware shows any >such involvement --- other than in the same way quantum mechanics is >involved in any other chemical reaction or electrical currents. > I have no argument with this, but only note that there *might* be some reason it will be impractical to emulate a human brain on a classical computer--something we don't know about yet, that will necessitate using some more powerful device, perhaps even a quantum computer. As for quantum mechanics and (or versus?) relativity, clearly there *is* unfinished work to be done in reconciling the two, but it does look as if progress is being made, with of course no guaranteed success, but once again I am hopeful. Thomas, in message #11589, says > >Hi Mike again, > >You haven't answered my objection at all. > Sorry, but at this point I'm not sure which "objection" you refer to. Could you enlighten me? Now, to go on to Bob Ettinger's postings, again only some high spots, starting with #11592: ... >I had noted that Deutsch's book nowhere mentioned waves nor gave any >explanation for interference between particles. Mike Perry replied: > >>Certainly more details could be supplied but are omitted from this >>non-technical book. The basic way photons "nudge" one another is by linear >>superposition of the complex-valued probability amplitudes. It isn't easy, >>beyond a certain point, to say what this means physically, > >It appears to mean that they act like waves, which was exactly my point. If >particles are "really" waves, or have waves associated with them, then why do >we need many-worlds? Off the top of my head, because we have to account for the interference of single particles, i.e. for what happens when only one photon at a time is involved. Self-interference is straightforwardly explained by many-worlds, which I don't think is matched by any other theory. From #11594: > >I had said (yes, often) that a Turing computer is extremely unlikely to be >able to emulate a person, ... ... > >WHEN (from an outside, objective point of view) does the emulated person >notice something or feel something or have an experience? > >When there is reading or writing going on? Hardly, because these are "events" >in the programmer's world, not in the putative emulation's world; during the >act of reading or writing there are no changes in the recorded sets of >numbers or data stores that correspond to the mental state of the emulation. > This is where I don't follow you. The tape stores a description of the mental state of the person. (That is the paradigm I have in mind, at least.). This description is being constantly refreshed or updated, albeit very slowly and awkwardly. The process of refreshing is being done by the machine's writing the tape. So there are indeed "changes in the recorded sets of numbers or data stores that correspond to the mental state of the emulation." Moreover, there is also the possibility that some inscribing of the tape could be done (directly or indirectly) from the outside, to allow a person to communicate with the entity that is being emulated. Overall, I see no reason you couldn't in principle carry on a conversation with such an emulated entity, who might have interesting things to say about consciousness, feeling, etc. So who is to say it wouldn't possess these qualities? Best forever to all, Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11599