Brain-computer interface and quantum robots

[ronaldheld]

 arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Mikes]

Ronald.

I pursue (vaguely) such development and - though have no intention to outguess Bruno's opinion - find it a VERY PRACTICAL (may I call it: e-bio) line. ("lineS" - plural). Quite amazing results have been so far achieved in this IMO totally initial phase. I can't wait how the ultra-theoreticians on this list will include such results into 'machine-consciousness' etc. ideas. 

John M 

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld <ronaldheld@...> wrote:

 arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
thoughts?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[ronaldheld]

I have to agree that I am curious what responses I will get from the
frequent posters.
I see this as someday being able to say,"yes, Doctor".
                                    Ronald

On Sep 10, 9:17 am, John Mikes <jami...@...> wrote:

> Ronald.
> I pursue (vaguely) such development and - though have no intention to
> outguess Bruno's opinion - find it a VERY PRACTICAL (may I call it: e-bio)
> line. ("lineS" - plural). Quite amazing results have been so far achieved in
> this IMO totally initial phase. I can't wait how the ultra-theoreticians on
> this list will include such results into 'machine-consciousness' etc.
> ideas.
> John M
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:06 AM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@...> wrote:
>
> >  arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
> > I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
> > thoughts?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent Meeker-2]

ronaldheld wrote:
>  arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508
> I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any
> thoughts?
>  
The authors write, "However, recent studies lead to the conclusion that
the human mind is not a classical computer, and, in general, not
completely reducible to any kind of computer (not even classical)
because of the
non-algorithmic nature of some mental processes."  But they give to no
reference to these "recent studies".  The paper seems to be about well
known problems in training artificial neural networks and other
artificial learning algorithms.  Sure EEG is inadequate to define
"intention", there's just not much information there.  I don't see that
as having any foundational implications.

Brent

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Sep 2009, at 19:38, Brent Meeker wrote:

ronaldheld wrote:

arXiv.org/abs/0909.1508

I saw the title and thought of what Bruno would make of it. Any

thoughts?

The authors write, "However, recent studies lead to the conclusion that
the human mind is not a classical computer, and, in general, not
completely reducible to any kind of computer (not even classical)
because of the
non-algorithmic nature of some mental processes."  But they give to no
reference to these "recent studies".  The paper seems to be about well
known problems in training artificial neural networks and other
artificial learning algorithms.  Sure EEG is inadequate to define
"intention", there's just not much information there.  I don't see that
as having any foundational implications.

I think so. Yet the  authors postulate a wave collapse, and conclude

<<

The previous arguments showed that the quantum approach predicts the possibility of a direct action 

of mind on matter.

>>

Just an old idea, it seems to me.

See Deutsch and Albert for quantum intospection in Everett and Bohm respectively.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---