Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: The human mind have similar function as quantum objects, but not necessarily the same structure, determinism is invalid because our universe is discontinuous, and is thus governed by indeterminate quantum laws, and can thus be described by quantum physics! These are some of my references which my conclusion is based on, together with my own reflections!

FAIR USE OF QUOTES!
The ability of mind to influence matter at a distance, and over eons of time, is perhaps best illustrated by the "gravitational lens effect." In space a quasar, a brilliant source of light very distant, can lie directly behind and in the same line of sight as an intervening galaxy. Rather than the nearer galaxy blocking the view of the more distant quasar as one might expect, the gravitational field of the intervening galaxy acts as a sort of "lens," bending the light so the quasar directly behind it can be seen. The quasar, however, appears in multiple images, above, below and to the sides of the intervening galaxy! The intervening galaxy is of course massive, and has a diameter of at least 100,000 light years. Depending on how the observing equipment is set up on earth, the incoming light behaves exactly like waves passing around the intervening galaxy on all sides, or like particles each of which takes a definite route to one side of the intervening galaxy or another. John Wheeler says:

But the new feature about the delayed choice version of this experiment is that we can wait until the light or photon (that is going to activate one of the counters) has accomplished almost all of its travel before we actually choose between the photon going by both routes or a photon going by only one of the two routes . . . . . . . The photons reaching us start out more than five billion years ago - that is, before there was anyone on Earth. Waiting here on Earth we can today cast a die and at the very last minute decide whether we will observe an interference photon (that is a photon which has come, as we jokingly describe, 'both ways') or change our method of registration so that we will find out which way the photon has come. And yet the photon has already accomplished most of its travel by the time we make this decision. So this is delayed choice with a vengeance! 17

17 John Wheeler in The Ghost in the Atom, ed. P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 65, 67.

Yet if a human mind today can influence the route or routes taken by a photon as it left its quasar five billion years ago, how much easier is it for that mind to influence the course of an electron at the synapse in the brain?
http://www.franks.org/fr01234.htm

In a sense the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago that "to be is to be perceived." http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Is there evidence of the quantum nature of the mind? Yes, there is. The physicist David Bohm noted long ago that we cannot simultaneously follow both the content of a thought and the direction the thought takes. This is like the quantum uncertainty principle — you cannot simultaneously ascertain both the position and the momentum of a material object (or thought).
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Spri...01goswami.html

Soderqvist1: I will give you some examples so you get a feeling for what Bohm mean! An inexperienced car driver has lot of attention on the car's details and knows less where the car is going! Schoolboys at oral exam can suffer from tongue-tied-ness when they think too much about the content of what to say, and because of that lose their ability to talk (momentum). You lose your ability to write if you have to much attention on spellings, since an experienced writer's hands, write precisely as they are doing it by themselves, just as we walk without any attention what our legs are doing, and vice versa!

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorem from his Biography
He proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system. In particular the consistency of the axioms cannot be proved. Godel's results were a landmark in 20th-century mathematics, showing that mathematics is not a finished object, as had been believed. It also implies that a computer can never be programmed to answer all mathematical questions. Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine. ...a consistency proof for [any] system ... can be carried out only by means of modes of inference that are not formalized in the system ... itself.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ans/Godel.html

The European Institute For General Semantics
"You will know that no doctrine can, without committing the unpardonable sin of circularity, undertake to define all of the terms it employs but that every doctrine must employ one or more terms regarded as being, without definition of them, sufficiently intelligible for the purposes of clear discourse. You will know that for a like reason no doctrine can furnish proof of all its propositions but that every doctrine must contain one or more propositions which it takes for granted, using them without demonstrating them. And you will know that a doctrine can have maximum clarity and cogency when and only when it has the minimum of undefined terms and undemonstrated propositions."
— Cassius J. Keyser, TAT
http://www.esgs.org/uk/und.htm

Soderqvist1: The question I want to ask a computer in a Turing test is; can Godel's incompleteness theorem be formalized in you system? If your answer is no! Why not? And if your answer is yes! Can you describe how this pattern in your program looks like?

However, the Godel sentences for instance; "this sentence cannot be proven" This gödel sentence is truth, but cannot be computed with a Turing Machine! , if you add something to the system in order to give it consistency, what you have added will end up incomplete too, the same it is with more adding, and so on in an infinite regress! This "takes for granted" by professor Keyser is not formalized in the system, therefore; a human mind is something more than a computational system, because the mind can even perceive arithmetical truths, which can not be formalized in theorems, and thus cannot be proven by a Turing Machine!

Fred

All words and ideas are human inventions themselves. Free will is simply a human idea and in the words of Jack Kerouac "Ideas are a dime a dozen !"
If one is acting within certain definite limits, that would mean that our free will, to do as we please, is also limited. If that is the case
is freedom an entire thing in itself, or does it exist as degrees ?

John Page

It may appear to be delayed choice, but isn't necessarily, it may be a difficulty with the method of observation.

sodium

In reply to Peter Soderqvist,

Let me try to explain the Godel based argument against AI as best I understand it, and what I think is wrong with it. Feel free to point out if the case can be made more cogently.

Let's say we have a machine that can solve mathematical problems (called HAL). We're going to put this machine up against a human mathematician of extraordinary skill (let's say Godel). The argument will be that Godel can come to know a fact that HAL cannot, and is therefore superior.

HAL is a computer running a program in an interpreted computer language like Python or Scheme. HAL can do many things, like singing songs and reading lips, but here we are only concerned with the fact he can solve mathematical problems. You give HAL a math question, and he says "true", "false" or "undecided". Godel does the same. Both are very careful, so we assume neither will ever make a mistake.

Keep in mind that no mathematician or computer can take forever on a problem. They take as long as they think it warrants, and then they give up, and return the answer of "undecided". Or they die, in which case we'll assume the answer of "undecided".

As I've said, HAL's activities are determined by the program he is running. So, here's what we do. We ask HAL to test a proposition. We type HAL's program into his terminal. Then we give the proposition, "This program, if given the same input we're giving you, would say 'false'".

If HAL says "true", then he is saying that his program would say "false", but since HAL says "true", this would be incorrect.

If HAL says "false", then he is saying that his program would not say "false", but since he does say "false", this would be incorrect.

So, to avoid being incorrect, HAL has to reply "unknown."

However, Godel could easily figure out, using this argument, that the proposition is false (since HAL in fact doesn't reply "false"). The force of this argument is lessened somewhat by the fact that any machine other than HAL could determine the same thing, but that isn't the main issue I'm going to address.

The main issue is the problem of those time limits. As I said before, both HAL and Godel are only willing to spend so much time on a problem before giving up in disgust. This means that there are provably true facts that each won't know. But this shouldn't be held against them. If you take some theorem of Godel's and extend it in a way he didn't anticipate, this doesn't place you at a higher level of consciousness than him. Even if you solve a problem by using the same techniques as he would have, but doing it faster, or giving more time to the problem, this would not be an argument that you must have some supernatural property he lacks.

Returning to the problem we posed HAL, the most obvious way to solve problems of this type, is to simulate the program in operation (figure out what it would do) until it completes, and then answer the question using the output. It's clear however that this poses a problem for HAL. HAL can't run a simulation of himself faster than he himself runs (and neither can you). But as long as HAL is willing to wait, the simulation will take more time before it completes. It's like the problem was specifically designed to take longer to solve than HAL is prepared to give.

Godel may solve the problem, but if he bases his answer on HAL's result, Godel is in effect using HAL's work. Godel then puts in a little more effort, and is able to come up with the result. If he doesn't use HAL's work, Godel has to do the simulation himself, in which case he must either be faster than HAL or willing to spend more time than HAL did on the problem. Either way, Godel is only successful because he is willing or able to put a little more work into the problem than is HAL. That's not an argument for some higher consciousness. Just more perseverance.

sodium

In reply to Peter Soderqvist,

I'm willing to agree that nature is most likely non-deterministic. This is the simplest explanation of quantum physics. Where I think people go awry is in claiming this has any importance for consciousness or free will.

John Wheeler gives an example of a mind having an effect at a distance, and apparently into the past. But you don't need a conscious observer to collapse the wave function. A computer or apparatus will do just as well. Now, I must admit a certain amount of ignorance on this subject, but it appears that certain kinds of interactions cause collapse of the wave function, and others don't. But no one has demonstrated an experiment with a different result simply because of the addition of a conscious mind as opposed to a purely mechanical observer. That would be truly earth-shaking, and would completely repudiate materialism. But it is what should be required before people claim that quantum theory gives some special role for consciousness.

Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: what kind of difficulties do you have in mind?
There are only two possible outcomes, namely, either to reject reality or locality? Reality is defined in this context, as "the universe exists independently of any observer"! Locality is defined, as no signal is faster than light speed! John Bell's in the 60s and Alain Aspect's experiments in the 80s force use to make our choices between these two alternatives! But later experiments has pointed out difficulties with reality, because these later experiments has confirmed that Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle is intrinsic in the quantum world!

Take the Bohr atom as illustration, the more we know about an electron's momentum the less we know about its position, and vise versa! An electron orbiting the atom in a standing wave of probability distribution of Eigenstates, when this electron emits energy of quanta, and thus jumping down to a lower energy level, the electron doesn't exists between these two orbits, or levels, hence we know about two positions, the higher, and the lower energy levels, or orbits, but we doesn't know about its momentum between these levels, because the electron doesn't exist there! These quantum jumps are known as discontinuous transformation of energy! Experiments later than Aspects' has been made in order to pin down the electron's momentum and position in a closed box, but the electron begins to bounces like crazy more, and more as the space decreases. That confirms that Heisenberg 's principle of uncertainty is intrinsic in the quantum world!

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene Chap 4: Microscopic Weirdness
If an electron is confined to a space of decreasing size, its motion (momentum) increases wildly due to "quantum claustrophobia"
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html

Quotations by Niels Bohr: Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ohr_Niels.html

Quotations by Werner Heisenberg: Since my talks with Bohr often continued till long after midnight and did not produce a satisfactory conclusion, both of us became utterly exhausted and rather tense. Thus, the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known, and conversely. The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it. I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm

Soderqvist1: Thus, the standing wave of probability distribution of Eigen states in the Atom is more correct interpreted a, a wave of possibility which collapses into actuality (one Eigenstate) when it is measured!

sodium

Oops, now that I think about it, my previous response didn't make sense, since Godel indeed has a more direct route of finding HAL's answer, without having to simulate HAL. He knows, that any program when fed itself under the conditions I stated has to answer undecided. I think my explanation of the problem was good, but my response was not.

But I think I've figured out a solution. Except for the requirement of true/false/undecided, it would be possible for HAL to respond in different ways. He could, for example, respond "Trick Question!" if input is fed in the way specified. Even if this response isn't allowed by the game, it could be registered internally. This would seem to suggest that the problem isn't really a lack of knowledge, since it is possible for HAL to recognize the situation.

The problem is more like that you would be faced with if asked to respond to the proposition, "Your next statement will be the word 'false'". You can't say "true" and you can't say "false". But a third party would know that the proposition is false. This doesn't show a lack of knowledge on your part, though.

Or try this one,
"You will conclude that this statement is false."

I know the truth value of that statement (when it refers to you), but to you its only a trick question.

****
Actually, wait just a second, doesn't that direct route I suggested for Godel (from my fictional example) at the beginning of this post rely on the fact that the program is never wrong. But how does Godel know that? Looks like I'll have to give this more thought.

Peter Soderqvist

TO SODIUM

Soderqvist1: I have also believed something similar, namely, that pi is uncountable because its digits are infinite, and there are no such things as a perpetual motion machine, but after I have read a book by Casti (Godel a life of logic) I came to the conclusion that I was wrong! Because a Turing Machine is an abstract perpetual motion machine and is thus "eternal" in a mathematical sense! Pi is infinite and so is the Turing machine and therefore pi is computable, but the most numbers in mathematics is even bigger and is labeled as uncountable numbers! Godel has proved once and for all in 1931, that truth and proof is not the same thing at all, because the numbers of truths are higher than the numbers of proof, or theorems!

In simpler terms, a recipe is a theorem, and a chocolate cake machine is a Turing machine, and every possible or imaginable variant of digestible chocolate cakes are truths! But our language or arithmetic is too "short or weak" in order to be formulated into recipes, hence our symbol systems are incomplete, but consistent, since there will always be abstract chocolate cakes without recipes! A Turing machine can only compute with recipes (programs), and is thus "unaware" about the amount of cakes without recipes, and these recipe-less cakes are known by mathematicians, as non-computational arithmetical truths, or non-computational insights as Roger Penrose has said in his book, The Emperor's New Mind. Gödel was a genuine Platonist like Penrose, and the recipe-less cakes can thus be metaphorically labeled as Platonic-cakes!

Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: Yes I know that it is a relation between the observed quantum object and the rest of the universe as the measuring apparatus! But if you write down a quantum mechanical wave equation for the whole universe, both this "wave function", and the computer, together with the rest of the universe are in a superposition of states, what causes the state vector reduction when everything in your equation is in a Unitary Evolution? This paradox can be solved by john Neumann's hypothesis, and Eugene Wigner 's immaterial mind hypothesis.

John von Neumann consider everything is in a superposition of states until consciousness enter the scene, and collapse the quantum wave function, because a Geiger counter, and computers connected to a quantum system ends up in a superposition of states too, and so on with further adding with measuring apparatuses in a infinite regress, this is called Neumann's infinite chain! Consciousness is the collapser of wave function according to Neumann! When gödel introduced his incompleteness theorem I Königsberg, Germany, on September 7 1930, Neumann was first to see the implications of Godel's theorem, I think the reason was that both deals with infinite regress, and the human minds' ability to end the chain (non-computational insights)! Goswami is a specialist regarding the Quantum measurement as linked below, with emphasis in bold type by me!

University of St Andrews in Scotland School of Mathematics and Statistics
These statements contradict two of our basic notions. We are rejecting realism, which tells us that a quantity has a value, to put things more grandly -- the physical world has an existence, independent of the actions of any observer. We are also rejecting determinism, the belief that, if we have a complete knowledge of the state of the system. In fact, though, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were convinced that one should not aim at realism. They were therefore pleased when John von Neumann proved a theorem claiming to show rigorously that it is impossible to add hidden variables to the structure of quantum theory. This was to be very generally accepted for over thirty years. Bell had showed rigorously that one could not have local realistic theories of quantum theory. Henry Stapp called this result the most profound discovery of science.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...Bell_John.html


Professor Amit Goswami at the University of Oregon!
The interpretational difficulties of quantum mechanics can be solved with the hypothesis (von Neumann, 1955; Wigner, 1962) that consciousness collapses the quantum wave function. The paradoxes raised against this hypothesis have now all been satisfactorily solved (Bass, 1971; Blood, 1993; Goswami, 1989, 1993; Stapp, 1993). There is, however, one question that continues to be raised: Is consciousness absolutely necessary for interpreting quantum mechanics? Can we find other alternatives to collapse and consciousness as the collapser?
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Summ...oswami9901.htm

sodium

In reply to Peter Soderqvist,

I don't think there is any real paradox that has to be resolved by the addition of immaterial minds.

From experiments, we see the interference effect of the wave function. We also see that in some situations, the interference effect stops, which is sometimes called the collapse of the wave function. These are strange observations, but they don't require introducing minds as fundamental to physics.

The simplest explanation is that when the wave function collapses, a random event has occurred, and the probability that a particular event will occur is given by the wave function. There is no reason to believe in alternate realities that do not cause interference, or any other effect. So, there is no need to use conscious minds as reality pruners.