.Scott said:
So the repeatable experiment that defeats the "common argument" in favor of QM (or new Physics) is simply asking people if they can truthfully report being conscious and feel a sense of reality or awareness.
I'm sorry but I'm not sure whether I follow your thought there, can you please elaborate , how would first person subjective experience told verbally prove anything beyond that which we already know?As for the new physics VS QM, I'd say I see an even bigger problem, I tried to put it forth but apparently I wasn't successful enough so far.
Let me ask this both to you as well as anyone else participating in this thread. Am I the only one who thinks there is a problem there.
All our computers so far , whether analog or digital and irrespective of their architecture , whether Von Neuman or other, follow certain known physics. In every computer you can actually trace out the path from the most abstract - a symbol within a user interface, to the symbol representing that within a program language to then the machine code that represents that, down further to the actual electrical signals that get created as the code is executed , then you can follow how those signals go back and forth as they are being processed by logic gates.
In fact we know that every single step, every single bite , every single half period of a square wave is deterministic within such system, because all of them have to be right and matching in order for the process to work.
Any single deviation from that operation is automatically an error, sure software are designed to tolerate certain amount of errors, but the bottom line is - these errors don't add anything of value to the process!
It's not like a CPU logic gate that is failing is creating new creativity within the computer. It adds no new information but only noise.
It's like corrupting a TV signal, you don't add information you can only add noise which at some point will completely destroy the original signal if left to increase.
Why am I saying this?
Because as far as we currently know and as far as I can understand it, our brains work differently.
There is no clear path one can trace out for every thought down to every neuron.
Sure, every thought is a spike of many neurons that progressed along the way , but there is no order as far as we know it. We can approximate the brain regions where the spike path begins, we can also see the regions that are most involved in certain activities, but apart from that every region has millions of neurons, and depending on the brain input , many neurons within a region can be "primed" or readied for spiking and yet not spike until some input is given, or maybe one spikes randomly.
In a way it is somewhat similar to nuclear decay, where each atom can decay randomly at any given time. Now unlike atoms , the neurons that are ready to fire can be , at least in theory , seen, by their increased potential that approaches but stays below the threshold, but there is no deterministic rule that determines which exact neuron will spike at any given time!
This is much more than just "fuzzy logic" or whatever you want to call it, this is essentially complete randomness with very little determination. It's like creating information from chaos, almost like the butterfly effect.
It also means that no two thoughts come from the same neuronal path, they may come from the same brain area but as probability would say, each has a different path, even if slightly.
Now add to that the property of brains that neuronal connections rewire with time - even more complexity that is completely unique for each individual. Almost like you would have 8 billion unique CPU architectures.
I see AI researchers making alot of brain to computer analogies but I believe they are premature and wrong, the brain is nothing like a computer, a computer is deterministic, and the determinism is built right into the circuit, the circuitry is fixed, it can;t change by it;s own accord nor can a error create new information.
Human brains on the other hand are working by what it seems, built in randomness.
And what is funny is that so far you don't even need QM or new physics, we understand how the neurons can change their potential and activity and influence one another even under classical physics - the hard part is to understand how that seemingly random behavior creates meaningful and complex information.
And is also very robust against damage and external influence.
One good argument against QM is that we know so far that quantum phenomenon not only need low temperatures for low kinetic energies of the involved particles so that their states can be preserved but they are also very sensitive to external influences.
The brain on the other hand is I'd say extremely robust against damage and external influence of all kinds, from downright mechanical impact to chemical to radiation etc . For reference see my post #543 and how the man with most of his brain deformed was able to preserve almost normal conscious self awareness.