Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > IS empiricism a natural part of pattern recognitio

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,13:33    Quote In order for Penrose to make sense of reality, he needs consciousness to be tied to quantum effects, even if he has no direct empirical evidence supporting that. And in order for Behe to make sense of evolution he need mutation to be tied to the machinations of an invisible designer. Where is Penrose's edge of consciousness? Does he have a cutoff beneath which consciousness does not exist? What's the cutoff? How many neurons are required for consciousness? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,14:38    All that is required to make sense of "Delayed Choice Quanntum Eraser" experiments is to discard/ignore the particle-like aspect of  photons (and/or matter in general).  A clue is that only entangled photons exhibit the "weird" behavior.  Like most (but not all) of the "quantum weirdness" experiments, it is the particle assumption that creates the cognitive dissonance. By treating everything as complex-valued wavefunctions, it all makes causal and mathematical sense.  Like the commenter in the link you provided says:     Quote Comment: To the physicist, the results "are all consistent with prediction." To the layperson, the results should be shocking....Ho-hum. Another experimental proof of QM. This is the way it works, folks.  With all due respect to Penrose , I don't see where "quantum conciseness" is needed, or plays any role,   -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,14:55    Is that quantum consciousness? Possibly bushwacked by a spell checker? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,14:59    Quote Proponents of the Quantum mind argue that perceived qualities, such as sound, taste and smell, also known as qualia, are an essential part of the human experience, and therefore cannot be discounted. They posit that classical mechanics fails to account for the experience of such phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Sounds to me like a variation on dualism. Or a high-class instance of god-of-the gaps. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,15:05    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,12:55) Is that quantum consciousness? Possibly bushwacked by a spell checker? I think maybe Freudian?  Definitely whacked, though. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:11    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,13:33) And in order for Behe to make sense of evolution he need mutation to be tied to the machinations of an invisible designer. Out of politeness, I overlooked the first time you mentioned Behe but since you insist... Is this AtBC's version of Godwin's law? If all else fails, claim it sounds like something Behe or Dembski would say? Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,13:33) Where is Penrose's edge of consciousness? Does he have a cutoff beneath which consciousness does not exist? What's the cutoff? How many neurons are required for consciousness? Once again, Penrose doesn't claim expertise in neurology.  However, Stuart Hameroff is the director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona (Curriculum Vitae).  He has quite a bit to say on the subject.  I think I know enough to summarize his position as needed but I don't want to stray off topic too much. So just let me drop this tidbit of information from a recent Nature article... "Here we present two-dimensional photon echo spectroscopy10, 11, 12, 13 measurements on two evolutionarily related light-harvesting proteins isolated from marine cryptophyte algae, which reveal exceptionally long-lasting excitation oscillations with distinct correlations and anti-correlations even at ambient temperature. These observations provide compelling evidence for quantum-coherent sharing of electronic excitation across the 5-nm-wide proteins under biologically relevant conditions, suggesting that distant molecules within the photosynthetic proteins are ‘wired’ together by quantum coherence for more efficient light-harvesting in cryptophyte marine algae." link

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:34    5 nm. That's about the witdth of 50 hydrogen atoms? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:46    Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 01 2010,14:38) All that is required to make sense of "Delayed Choice Quanntum Eraser" experiments is to discard/ignore the particle-like aspect of  photons (and/or matter in general).  A clue is that only entangled photons exhibit the "weird" behavior.  Like most (but not all) of the "quantum weirdness" experiments, it is the particle assumption that creates the cognitive dissonance. By treating everything as complex-valued wavefunctions, it all makes causal and mathematical sense.  Like the commenter in the link you provided says:             Quote Comment: To the physicist, the results "are all consistent with prediction." To the layperson, the results should be shocking....Ho-hum. Another experimental proof of QM. This is the way it works, folks.  With all due respect to Penrose , I don't see where "quantum conciseness" is needed, or plays any role,   Thank you for your comment. Assuming there is no such thing as particles and everything is a wavefunction only gets us part of the way there.  Penrose suggest a "photon" traveling at the speed of light is a wavefunction in space-time that transforms into a single point in Twistor Space. To us, it looks like a "photon" can be in multiple places at the same time (superposition) where future causes can create past effects. At some point, the superpositions resolve themselves to a single answer.  Why? Penrose suggests superposition resolution ("Objective Reduction") occurs automatically after a period of time.  The length of this timeframe is based on the system mass (i.e. quantum gravity).  The larger the mass, the quicker the resolution.  This is why buckyballs exhibit superposition but baseballs don't. However, there is the problem of that darn Schrödinger's cat (i.e. quantum measurement problem).  For some reason measurement choice by a conscious observer affects and causes Objective Reduction. One way to make sense of this is if conscious choice is part of the superposition system at the quantum level. I hope this helps explain how and why I see this as I do.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:48    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,11:33) Quote In order for Penrose to make sense of reality, he needs consciousness to be tied to quantum effects, even if he has no direct empirical evidence supporting that. And in order for Behe to make sense of evolution he need mutation to be tied to the machinations of an invisible designer. Where is Penrose's edge of consciousness? Does he have a cutoff beneath which consciousness does not exist? What's the cutoff? How many neurons are required for consciousness? Hi all. Penrose's hypothesis is not a structural argument. He's describing a problem he sees in constructing AI. Taking Hofstadter's premise, Penrose, in his own words: Quote "Mathematical truth is not something that we ascertain merely by use of an algorithm. I believe, also, that our consciousness is a crucial ingredient in our comprehension of mathematical truth. We must 'see' the truth of a mathematical argument to be convinced of its validity. This 'seeing' is the very essence of consciousness. It must be present whenever we perceive mathematical truth. When we convince ourselves of the validity of Gödel's theorem we not only 'see' it, but by so doing we reveal the very non-algorithmic nature of  the 'seeing' process itself." -the emperor's new brain. He isn't making the same argument TP is making. He's saying that the act of modeling in our mind, the part that computers seem to emulate relatively easily, is not the same product nor could it be the same process. He makes some efforts to tie it to neuroscience but ultimately his point is not relevant to human consciousness mechanics as much as it is to AI consciousness. The complication of the neural system is more than he addresses. TP is taking the idea to a conclusion that seems obvious but is not warranted. At least Penrose doesn't go there. Also, the math Penrose is using to justify his hypothesis is just plain beyond most people. Even most physicists. My original point with the OP was more like a response to Hofstadter than to Penrose. TP earlier claimed that not all modeling is algorithmic. Then claimed religion as a non algorithmic model. Um.. Yes it is. The symbols are inputs with forces and manipulated over time. I am not convinced that there is such a thing as a non algorithmic modeling process. The question Penrose raises has to do with whether our brains are actually modeling at their root or whether that is a process done as a result of a different process. My question from the OP is whether science is a method analogous to Godel numbering new axioms. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,17:01    I'm sorry, but all I see in this is Fred Hoyle Syndrome, a lot of really bright people with big vocabularies, who don't understand evolution. Before I asserted the need for some magical entity responsible for non-algorithmic computation, I'd want to see if I could map the observed behavior of neurons and neuronal networks to an algorithm. To the best of my knowledge, it takes a pretty hefty supercomputer to emulate a few seconds of activity in a rat brain. Nevermind doing anything useful like emulating rat behavior in maze solving. This is without making any assumptions regarding the inadequacy of biochemistry to describe neurons. Sounds like high-end vitalism to me. Since I'm a great Nobel Prize winner and smarter than almost everybody, and I can't see how organization emerges from simple processes, there must be something magical involved. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,17:05    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,15:01) I'm sorry, but all I see in this is Fred Hoyle Syndrome, a lot of really bright people with big vocabularies, who don't understand evolution. Before I asserted the need for some magical entity responsible for non-algorithmic computation, I'd want to see if I could map the observed behavior of neurons and neuronal networks to an algorithm. To the best of my knowledge, it takes a pretty hefty supercomputer to emulate a few seconds of activity in a rat brain. Nevermind doing anything useful like emulating rat behavior in maze solving. This is without making any assumptions regarding the inadequacy of biochemistry to describe neurons. Sounds like high-end vitalism to me. Since I'm a great Nobel Prize winner and smarter than almost everybody, and I can't see how organization emerges from simple processes, there must be something magical involved. that would be my assessment too. One caveat though, his question is about the structure of math rather than reality. Asked that way, it's an interesting question in a number of ways. Poincare hit on a very similar question here: http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Poincare/Poincare_1905_03.html which I think is a lot more straightforward. The physical continuum is simply not a mathematical continuum. Which is weird. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,17:08    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,14:34) 5 nm. That's about the witdth of 50 hydrogen atoms? and about 1/100th the wavelength of the photon.  i.e. the photon is several hundred times bigger than the protein itself, and we are surprised that it is coherent over this distance, regardless of the temperature? -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,17:18    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 01 2010,14:46) Thank you for your comment. ...<snip> ... However, there is the problem of that darn Schrödinger's cat (i.e. quantum measurement problem).  For some reason measurement choice by a conscious observer affects and causes Objective Reduction. One way to make sense of this is if conscious choice is part of the superposition system at the quantum level. I hope this helps explain how and why I see this as I do. C'mon TP.  You yourself admitted that the consciousness of the "observer" is immaterial to the outcome of the quantum experiments. All that is required is that the measurement be possible in principle. What's different about this one? -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,18:24    Hi sledgehammer, Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 01 2010,17:18) You yourself admitted that the consciousness of the "observer" is immaterial to the outcome of the quantum experiments. I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. Could you provide a link?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,18:28    To Moderators. I would like some guidance.  I feel we are definitely straying off topic for this thread.  I would start a new one, but I'm worried about abusing the privilege. Please advise. Thanks

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,19:13    Hi BWE, This should safely be within the thread's topic.     Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2010,16:48) TP earlier claimed that not all modeling is algorithmic. Then claimed religion as a non algorithmic model. Um.. Yes it is. The symbols are inputs with forces and manipulated over time. I am not convinced that there is such a thing as a non algorithmic modeling process. The question Penrose raises has to do with whether our brains are actually modeling at their root or whether that is a process done as a result of a different process. "God works in mysterious ways" is algorithmic? I believe in letting people define their own terms,  but if you define "model" to include only things that are algorithmic then postulating "Any modeling process is algorithmic" is redundant.     Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2010,16:48) My question from the OP is whether science is a method analogous to Godel numbering new axioms. You might have to bear with me on this because I'm not quite sure what you are saying. As I see it, if science is a simple input-process-output model then empirical data is king.  All one has to do is put the facts in, process them and out comes a model. I'm arguing this isn't always the case. Darwin and Galileo had to deal with conflicting inputs yet came up with an intuitive answer that was correct. Penrose believes this is the kind of non-algorithmic process he employed to discover his Penrose Tilings. Here is a slide from a presentation Penrose gave. Clearly, Penrose is suggesting Godel's theorems apply equally to consciousness as it does for mathematical understanding (especially in context of the whole presentation). This doesn't make him right.  But I believe Penrose's perspective conflicts with what you are suggesting.  If not, then maybe we aren't in disagreement either.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,19:23    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 01 2010,16:24) Hi sledgehammer,       Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 01 2010,17:18) You yourself admitted that the consciousness of the "observer" is immaterial to the outcome of the quantum experiments. I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. Could you provide a link? Oops! I misread your comment.  I see now that you, in fact, do buy into the "What the Bleep Do We Know", new-age woo, that the presence of consciousness in an observer has a material effect on the outcome of a quantum experiment.  I remember thinking at the time  "well maybe he's not so far out in left field after all." I was wrong. My sincere apologies, and condolences. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,19:42    Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 01 2010,19:23) Oops! I misread your comment.  I see now that you, in fact, do buy into the "What the Bleep Do We Know", new-age woo, that the presence of consciousness in an observer has a material effect on the outcome of a quantum experiment.  I remember thinking at the time  "well maybe he's not so far out in left field after all." I was wrong. My sincere apologies, and condolences. Oh yes, I am a quantum quack. For what it is worth I think Hameroff overreaches at times.  So maybe I haven't reached the status of "full fledged quack" yet. Here is the end of a 2009 interview with Roger Penrose I pretty much agree with (link)... In your book The Emperor’s New Mind, you posited that consciousness emerges from quantum physical actions within the cells of the brain. Two decades later, do you stand by that? "In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have. This is being a bit big-headed, but I think it’s a little bit like William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood. He worked out that it had to circulate, but the veins and arteries just peter out, so how could the blood get through from one to the other? And he said, “Well, it must be tiny little tubes there, and we can’t see them, but they must be there.” Nobody believed it for some time. So I’m still hoping to find something like that—some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there." When physicists finally understand the core of quantum physics, what do you think the theory will look like? "I think it will be beautiful."

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,20:10    Quote How many neurons are required for consciousness? There's a strong temptation to say 42, but I think I'll resist. Henry

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,20:11    Quote midwifetoad, posted 3/01/10 1:59 PM Quote Proponents of the Quantum mind argue that perceived qualities, such as sound, taste and smell, also known as qualia, are an essential part of the human experience, and therefore cannot be discounted. They posit that classical mechanics fails to account for the experience of such phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Sounds to me like a variation on dualism. Or a high-class instance of god-of-the gaps. Even if the classical theory doesn't account for something, does that necessarily mean the something is inconsistent with the theory? (My guess is no.) Henry

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:30    I make the comarison to vitalism because chemistry does not yet explain the transition to life. We have no account of how living things can self-assemble frm non-living chemicals. Consciousness is a gap. We do not understand everything about how brains work. I ask what the simplest instance of consciousness might be, because I'm curious whether quantum consciousness is required for organisms having only a few neurons, or perhaps organisms like sensitive plants, where there is behavior but no neurons. Quantum consciousness seems to be a stand-in for the soul. At what point in the history of life did this soul  evolve? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,12:13    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2010,08:30) Consciousness is a gap. We do not understand everything about how brains work. I ask what the simplest instance of consciousness might be, because I'm curious whether quantum consciousness is required for organisms having only a few neurons, or perhaps organisms like sensitive plants, where there is behavior but no neurons. Quantum consciousness seems to be a stand-in for the soul. At what point in the history of life did this soul  evolve? At what point in the history of life did awareness evolve? Here are some artistic renditions of vernanimalcula guizhouena... This small animal (between 0.1 and 0.2 mm across) existed pre-Cambrian. It had organs. A mouth, a digestive system and an anus. It could smell, taste and feel. It had the beginnings of a nervous system and brain center.  It also had two light sensitive pits exactly where you would expect eyes to be. I suggest this animal had already evolved an awareness of its surrounding.  We have direct evidence of life incorporating beneficial Quantum Mechanical properties.  What could be more beneficial to life than awareness?  Once quantum biophysics got its foot in the door, evolutionary forces would inevitably propel its use to the max, up to and including sentient beings. Midwifetoad, you may want to use loaded words like "soul".  And, yes, there are those who take this concept to that extreme, but it isn't needed. If microtubules are, in fact, miniature quantum computers then a lot of living things have this built in processing capability.  That doesn't necessarily mean there is soul.  It doesn't even necessarily mean quantum effects are connected (I happen to think they are).  All that needs to happen, is that it is beneficial to the organism.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,14:23    So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that quantum effects are "essential" to awareness, all the way down. Not just as triggers to chemical processes, as with photons and light sensitivity, but somehow facilitating communication between bits of a cell, or even between cells. EDIT to add: And when you speak of quantum effects, you are speaking of something like entanglement, not anything covered by conventional chemistry? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,19:18    Hi midwifetoad,     Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2010,14:23) So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that quantum effects are "essential" to awareness, all the way down. Not just as triggers to chemical processes, as with photons and light sensitivity, but somehow facilitating communication between bits of a cell, or even between cells. Is Chlorophyll "essential" for converting sunlight into energy? No (e.g. photocells), but it is very helpful to living things. Depending on definitions it could be said that litmus paper is aware of the presence of acids or bases. Quantum effects aren't essential for awareness, but they are very helpful to living things. I suggest awareness evolved into consciousness.  I presume quantum effects ARE essential for consciousness (again, depending on definitions). A potentially more interesting question is whether or not quantum effects are a fundamental aspect of DNA-based life? "The factorized quantum search algorithm locates the desired item in an unsorted database using O(log4 N) queries, which is a factor of two improvement over the best search algorithm for a classical sorted database. ... It is too tempting to overlook a fundamental biological process that works in this manner, i.e. replication of DNA. (As a matter of fact, biochemistry is full of assembly processes which synthesize desired objects out of their components by pattern recognition oracles.) The DNA alphabet has four letters, i.e. the bases A,T,C,G. ... The fact that this process takes place at the molecular scale and uses an alphabet of four letters raises a highly provocative thought. Could it be that the evolution of life sensed the advantage of a quantum algorithm, and opted to organize the genetic information in DNA using four bases? Note that classically just two bases (one complementary pair) are sufficient to carry the genetic information."link     Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2010,14:23) And when you speak of quantum effects, you are speaking of something like entanglement, not anything covered by conventional chemistry? Entanglement and quantum processing, yes.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,00:40    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2010,12:23) So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that quantum effects are "essential" to awareness, all the way down. Not just as triggers to chemical processes, as with photons and light sensitivity, but somehow facilitating communication between bits of a cell, or even between cells. EDIT to add: And when you speak of quantum effects, you are speaking of something like entanglement, not anything covered by conventional chemistry? While I  agree with TP that "free will" and consciousness are probably a macroscopic manifestation of quantum indeterminacy (e.g. thermal noise),  I don't believe that "quantum computation"(coherence, entanglement) is a requirement.  A completely deterministic algorithm, such as a software program, can be made to exhibit anything from complete indeterminacy to quasi determinism with the addition of true randomness (as opposed to algorithmic pseudo-randomness) somewhere in the program.  I'd even venture to guess that a sufficiently complex algorithm which included several sources of true randomness and sufficient memory, could be made indistinguishable from an intelligent agent exhibiting free will, and pass the Turing test with flying colors. I also strongly suspect that we will see it within a decade or three. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,08:31    I fail to see any practical difference between "true randomness" and strong pseudo-randomness, except in encryption. Any evolutionary system will be shaped by selection if variation explores the "search space." The source of variation is relatively unimportant. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,09:37    Agreed.  The source of the randomness makes no difference in an evolutionary scenario. I maintain only that it is important in an algorithmic simulation of "free will".  I'm not sure what the definition of "strong pseudo-randomness" is, but an algorithm that includes simple pseudo-randomness will generate the same answer for the same input every time, as long as the seed for the PR generator remains the same. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,09:43    Since I think the free will debate is a morass of ill-defined bullshit, I have no bias one way or the other in the matter of true randomness. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,10:42    Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 02 2010,22:40) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2010,12:23) So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that quantum effects are "essential" to awareness, all the way down. Not just as triggers to chemical processes, as with photons and light sensitivity, but somehow facilitating communication between bits of a cell, or even between cells. EDIT to add: And when you speak of quantum effects, you are speaking of something like entanglement, not anything covered by conventional chemistry? While I  agree with TP that "free will" and consciousness are probably a macroscopic manifestation of quantum indeterminacy (e.g. thermal noise),  I don't believe that "quantum computation"(coherence, entanglement) is a requirement.  A completely deterministic algorithm, such as a software program, can be made to exhibit anything from complete indeterminacy to quasi determinism with the addition of true randomness (as opposed to algorithmic pseudo-randomness) somewhere in the program.  I'd even venture to guess that a sufficiently complex algorithm which included several sources of true randomness and sufficient memory, could be made indistinguishable from an intelligent agent exhibiting free will, and pass the Turing test with flying colors. I also strongly suspect that we will see it within a decade or three. I suspect within a decade at the outside. In fact, I'm not sure it isn't being studied in a lab right now. And true randomness isn't even a requirement. In the last 5 years, the world changed. Learning algorithms are commonplace, there are dozens of computer models of neural networks which function exactly as they would be expected to, and embodied intelligence has crossed the hurdle of creativity. If you want a good place to start, http://www.umass.edu/neuro/faculty/files/siegelmann.html EDIT: No link on that page to her publications. If you actually care, here is that link: http://binds.cs.umass.edu/publications.html this lady has some interesting math she has been working on for quite some time. The list however, is nearly endless. AI is not theoretical anymore. All that is left to do is hammer out a set of consistent definitions and build some already understood architecture. If it is essential to awareness that some quantum thing happen, then it happens whenever the conditions in the relativistic universe are met. i.e. it need not be understood to be applied. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,11:34    Quote there are dozens of computer models of neural networks which function exactly as they would be expected to My point when I said quantum consciousness solves a problem not in evidence. In order to have a need for such a hypothesis, you need a recalcitrant problem. Simply not knowing how self-awareness arises is not such a problem. The cost of hardware is a problem, which is why I'm interested in Stanford. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard