
Non-Computability of Consciousness (2007) - user9756
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1617
======
317070
The paper relies implicitly on the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of
quantum physics, which has consciousness as an assumption. So the paper is
part of a circle argument. [1]

On top of that, this interpretation is very controversial to say the least. In
most interpretations, the role of the 'observer' is left in the middle, as
there is no good reason to assume it should be conscious.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_inte...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation)

------
gipp
> Because the observables correspond to the reference frame of the observer
> and they exist in the complex Hilbert space, it must be concluded that,
> unlike reference frames in classical physics, quantum observables correspond
> to an observer’s reference frame in thought.

The whole argument rests on this sentence, which is just pure nonsense.
There's nothing about Hilbert spaces that has anything to do with conscious
thought; the conclusion is a complete non sequitur. The context of the
sentence doesn't add anything to support such a notion, either.

This is just another in a long line of people putting way too much stock in
the very unfortunate choice of the word "observation" as used in QM.

------
SilasX
>A certain phenomenon of consciousness is demonstrated to be fully represented
as a computational process using a quantum computer. Based on the
computability criterion discussed with Turing machines, the model constructed
is shown to necessarily involve a non-computable element.

So, the universe contains uncomputable physics?

Some aspect of quantum computing is uncomputable (beyond mere exponential
slowdown in a classical simulation)?

Edit: those two claims are at least as interesting as anything about
consciousness, but much more amenable to further study!

------
joe_the_user
I would say the psychological riddle is why people feel an urge to treat
consciousness as an irreducible quality.

~~~
s_baby
I would say the psychological riddle is why people feel an urge to personally
invest themselves in this issue. :tips fedora:

~~~
duaneb
By all observations it is not a riddle (i.e. there are no unexplainable
phenomena) but rather an illusion.

~~~
danbruc
I don't think it is justified to say that consciousness is not a riddle. There
is no evidence that consciousness is more than the product of the complex
physical processes happening in our brain but I don't think that makes the
issue any less puzzling. How does a collection of particles completely
governed by physical laws become conscious? If consciousness is just an
emergent property of an incredible complex state machine than any
implementation would have to be conscious, the often quoted simulation of a
brain inside a computer as well as a gigantic pile of levers, gears and
pulleys in the right arrangement. The thought that a collection of gears can
become aware of its existence seems, at least to me, pretty outlandish.

~~~
duaneb
> The thought that a collection of gears can become aware of its existence
> seems, at least to me, pretty outlandish.

I mean, it's less exciting when you break that down into the what it means for
a person to be aware of themselves. For me, it breaks down to neurons &
symbols, well-known scientific domains. While I may not be right, it's not
difficult to come up with plausible explanations for the phenomena humans
experience. Most of the mystery comes from it being very difficult for most
people to even define consciousness. Much of the syntax we have for it (in the
west, at least) is cobbled together from various religions, spiritualities,
and extremely, extremely dense philosophers read by few and understood by
fewer.

You might find Richard Hofstadter's Book "I Am A Strange Loop" illuminating if
you find my explanation meager.

~~~
s_baby
>I mean, it's less exciting when you break that down into the what it means
for a person to be aware of themselves. For me, it breaks down to neurons &
symbols, well-known scientific domains.

I'm not aware of "neurons and symbols". I'm aware of feeling, sight, smell,
etc.. The fact that consciousness is an experience is what's fundamentally at
odds with building a consistent model. Modeling cognition is the easy part.

~~~
duaneb
> I'm aware of feeling, sight, smell, etc..

a), you can have that thought only because of symbols, and b), people without
thought can feel, see, smell, etc. I don't see how your argument holds any
weight.

