[ExI] Do digital computers feel?
John Clark
johnkclark at gmail.com
Tue Dec 27 16:44:04 UTC 2016
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is a straw man argument. Nobody claimed the brain is an analog
>
> computer. Rafal simply asked that if mathematical infinities are real,
Well that's the big question, are mathematical infinities real? I don't
know, all I know is that so far nobody has found a infinite number of
anything in the physical world.
>
> as
>
> experimental evidence supports both with regard to the reality of the wave
>
> function
Schrodinger's wave is continuous but it's not something that can perform
calculations or even be directly detected, to do that you need to take the
square of the absolute value of the
wave
function
of a particle at a point
, and even then you only get
the
probability
,
not a certainty
,
of finding the particle at that point
.
So maybe the wave is just a tool humans have invented to help us calculate
things, like the lines of longitude and latitude are useful tools for
calculating position on the Earth's surface but have no physical reality.
After all Schrodinger's wave isn't the only way to calculate probabilities,
Heisenberg's more abstract matrix method can do it too and was actually
discovered a few months before
Schrodinger
found his wave. On some problems Heisenberg's
method is easier to use although usually Schrodinger's
is more convenient,
but both work.
> >
> and the lack of granularity in space-time,
I think most (but not all) physicists would say
space-time
must be granular, and if it happens at the obvious place, the Planck
level, then it's not surprising there is no experimental evidence of it.
> >
> then might not these
>
> infinities allow the brain to generate a continuum of mental states
>
> instead of finite number of discrete mental states?
>
A computer that can be in a continuum of states is the definition of an
Analog computer, and by that definition nobody has ever built a true Analog
computer. People stopped making sudo "Analog" computers in the 1950s, and
even the best one couldn't be in as many discernible states as a $9 digital
hand calculator can.
>>
>> There are an infinite number, in fact an uncountabley infinite number,
>>
>> of maps that can be drawn on a flat square, but only 4 colors are needed
>>
>> to keep all the countries on the map separate. This was proven by a
>>
>> computer way back in 1977, but to this day nobody can prove it without
>>
>> a computer.
>
>
> >
> No actually it was proven by some mathematicians that used a computer to
>
> prove their theorem. The computer didn't even understand the problem it
>
> was trying to solve.
And human mathematicians
don't understand the proof the computer provided, they must just take it on
faith that what the computer is telling them is true.
> >
> Inductive reasoning seems really hard for computers
>
> but seems second nature to us.
Inductive reasoning
isn't only second nature to us it's second nature to a snail too;
Evolution invented it more than 500 million years ago but deductive
reasoning is much more difficult, it only managed to come up with it about
a million years ago.
Inductive reasoning
just makes use of a simple axiom to predict the future, namely "things
usually, but not always, continue".
>
> During the Victorian era, when clocks and and analog pocket-watches were
> [...]
>
>
There is no such thing as an analog pocket
watch
.
The hands on those watches were connected to a finite number of gears and
ratchets, and those gears and ratchets
had teeth on them, a finite number of teeth. So the watch could only be in
a finite number of states.
So it's not analog.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161227/ea392c3d/attachment.html>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list