Philosophy Now Forum

Ginkgo wrote:

Blaggard wrote:There are no good answers to why life exists either, does that throw any doubt on the fact that carbon bundled together seems to be alive? It's a fact that life is alive, just because we haven't solved the hard problem means we should look for an answer to that not widely speculate on quantum mechanical properties which cannot even exist in the synapses.

how can random forces compose everything in existence? Well I could speculate and arm wave about how. Or I could just say something like since at the classical limit quantum effects no longer have an effect and classical deterministic non random forces dominate (well aside from entropy which is non reversible and not really classical as such). So in short the answer is random forces don't dominate except at the nano scale and our DNA has evolved to make use of QM at the molecular level and non QM properties at the macro level such as in the brain.

Hi Blaggard,

Your reference to,"the hard problem". Do you mean the hard problem of consciousness?

Is there another.

Blaggard wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Blaggard wrote:There are no good answers to why life exists either, does that throw any doubt on the fact that carbon bundled together seems to be alive? It's a fact that life is alive, just because we haven't solved the hard problem means we should look for an answer to that not widely speculate on quantum mechanical properties which cannot even exist in the synapses.

how can random forces compose everything in existence? Well I could speculate and arm wave about how. Or I could just say something like since at the classical limit quantum effects no longer have an effect and classical deterministic non random forces dominate (well aside from entropy which is non reversible and not really classical as such). So in short the answer is random forces don't dominate except at the nano scale and our DNA has evolved to make use of QM at the molecular level and non QM properties at the macro level such as in the brain.

Hi Blaggard,

Your reference to,"the hard problem". Do you mean the hard problem of consciousness?

Is there another.

Other than my wife, no.

You reference top AI singularity in another post is rather interesting. It seems as though those who embrace AI do so because it doesn't have to acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness. The quite simply isn't any hard problem. On the other hand, people such as Hameroff who believe there is a hard problem subscribe to quantum consciousness because it contains the possibility of providing answers to these questions.

Ginkgo wrote:

Calrid wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
Your reference to,"the hard problem". Do you mean the hard problem of consciousness?

Is there another.

Other than my wife, no.

Lol women are mysteriously unpredictable at the best of times.

ginkgo wrote: You reference top AI singularity in another post is rather interesting. It seems as though those who embrace AI do so because it doesn't have to acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness. The quite simply isn't any hard problem. On the other hand, people such as Hameroff who believe there is a hard problem subscribe to quantum consciousness because it contains the possibility of providing answers to these questions.

It is an interesting use of the word singularity too, to mean the point where machines become sentient/conscious and hence more intelligent than humans, and to some extent it presumes this is only a matter of time not probability.

Ginkgo wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Carbon molecules are mere materials. Could two carry a thing called consciousness? Could ten? Could a billion? No. Adding another inert unit changes nothing, and does not suddenly generate consciousness.

Could they carry consciousness if they were stacked? If they were clumped? If they were put in a line? No. A pile, a line, a group, or a clump are all just descriptors of the same thing: inert matter in different places.

Two miracles need explaining here: 1) How do inert molecules, under the hand of only random forces, end up composing anything; and 2) How can any amount of inert materials, arranged in any pattern, somehow produce that highly spooky, immaterial quality we refer to by the word "consciousness"?

At present, there are no good explanations.

No doubt the case at the moment. Although it is interesting. I don't think there is a problem saying that such systems can contain information. We might also get away with saying that such systems have knowledge. That is to say, a particular kind of knowledge. Even if such systems contain knowledge and information we cannot really say that such a system is conscious in the way we generally understand consciousness.

Information means data as in a qbit or quantum bit can either be up and down or down and up, in its spin configuration or down and up in a superposition of states better expressed as 0,1,1-0,0-1, a normal bit is 1 or 0. Qbits utilised on quantum transistors, which do exist have potentially exponential processing power, and don't suffer from heat issues, unfortunately so far only relatively simple calculations have been done because of the fragile nature of the system. They have for example added two numbers together faster than a conventional computer, using ion trap transistors in parallel.

Information in this case does not presume either intelligence or consciousness it just is. I'd hazzard a gues that quantum computers are maybe 20 to 50 years off, and will radically increase computers power, although probably only be available to a small part of the population at least initially because of the expense of keeping the ion traps close to 0k. Likely uses are as number crunchers in complex systems like the weather or what a woman is going to do or say next.

I am joking about women by the way.

blag .a quote from neils bohr.any one who understands quantum mechanics with out going fuzzy dosnt under stand it.how comes you aint goin fuzzy then blag.

jackles wrote:blag .a quote from neils bohr.any one who understands quantum mechanics with out going fuzzy dosnt under stand it.how comes you aint goin fuzzy then blag.

Because Niels Bohr was speaking in 1932, and we have come on a way since then. Now it would be better to take "anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not really understood it", which is I presume the quote you mean, and say, anyone who was at first shocked but then understood it later is not alone.

It's fuzzy but in terms of the wave it becomes much more readily obvious why it is the way it is. Particle wave duality is still an enigma though wrapped up in a Scooby Do mystery, where it wasn't for once the janitor who did it, and was caught by some meddling kids.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... eSlit.html

This is a good resource:











The wave in a single photon interferes with itself because of interferences fringes across the medium.

consciousness cannot be a construct made by the event to experience the event.consciousness is an absolute of its self taped into by the brain at the quantum level of things.so the very small and the very big are the same in terms of sizeless nonlocality of consciousness.