Should Brain / Turing Machines / DNA Computers / Neural networks be modelled using quantum physics calculations - Theory

"erach27{}" <erach27{}> wrote on 8 Apr 2007 02:34:
> Should Brain / Turing Machines / DNA Computers / Neural networks and
> CONSCIOUSNESS be modelled using quantum physics calculations.

No, those things shouldn't be modelled by quantum physics, since it's the
wrong level of description. (And Turing Machines aren't even physical.)
It would make as much sense to model a sorting routine "using quantum
physics calculations".

> That you are a human being or a machine (without free will) you are
> wondering. But there is something called QUANTUM FIELDS which assures
> free will (so said Dr S B Khadkikar --- who is retired head of
> theoretical physics group, physics research laboratory, ahmedabad,
> India)

He (and you) are wrong. Although lots of people talk and write about
possible connections, there is no necessary connection between consciousness,
and anything in quantum theory.

> but finally think of yourself as a person who has a consciousness which is
> what a digital computer does not have (I think).

It's also highly controversial whether a digital computer has (or even could
have) consciousness. There's a significant minority which believes that
current computers already have (a limited form of) consciousness.

> Has anybody thought of the Theory of A Turing machine whose speed doubles
> in the speed of execution with every step

Of course. Not much interesting comes out of that work (as it describes a
device which could never be built; not even approximately).

> and whose cells are QUANTUM-SIZED in order to make it possible to double
> the speed of execution every time -------------- in other words, the speed
> doubles but the cell size HALVES.

Cell size has nothing to do with speed. Moreover, even all the wonderful
magic of quantum theory will never get you a device that can "double the
speed (or half the size) in every step". Quantum theory gives hard limits
at Planck distances. You can't do anything useful smaller than that. And
you'll get to that size awfully quick if you try to half the cell size in
every step.

You're describing a device that is not physically plausible, EVEN WITH the
magic of quantum theory.

> respectable people are arguuing that the brain is a quantum machine.

It's surely a product of quantum theory just the way that rocks and tree and
asteroids are.

Whether the brain shares any deeper connection with quantum theory than those
other things is highly controversial. Certainly, no experimental evidence
yet proves that it does.

> is it a quantum machine as everybody is arguuing ------- now it is not a
> completely connected neural net --------- but a completely connected
> QUANTUM NEURAL NET --------- so it is not the simple exponential equations
> that should be used ---- but the much more complicated equations of QUANTUM
> PHYSICS.

You should throw in a little pixie dust from Tinkerbell too...

-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don{}geddis.org
A Bolshevik speaker promised his audience "come the revolution, we will all
eat strawberries and cream." "But I dont like strawberries and cream,"
responded a listener. "Come the revolution we will ALL eat strawberries and
cream!," the Bolshevik intoned. -- Butler Shaffer

What is the architecture of a NearExponentialComputer ?
You need quantum gates in it ---- these have to be planar or volumnar,
inject electrons in it,
have the electrons come out in one of 4 possible outcomes "00", "01",
"10", "11" simultaneously and thus do graph traversal operations
easily.
You can add leaky quantum memory on it (or not necessary leaky, it
could be good memory, but the brain has holographic memory),
Need a background current.

What the brain calls emotions ----- is nothing but all the quantum
computers working together.
You need a BACKGROUND CURRENT so the entire quantum whatever is kept
"alive".

A digital computer reading all the quantum circuits linearly (just
like bubble memory is read) and providing feedback via injecting
electrons --------------- just like you train a child or a dog (at
home, my brother is training a dog, and I am also being trained by my
girlfriend)

Now, quantum assists quantum, so if you tie quantum patches or quantum
bands around mal-functioning (or sick) parts of the human body and
set up a feedback loop, would it stabilize the sick parts ------ just
like the (search google) "20,000 rat neurons fly an F16 flight
simulator" stabilized the plane without being told to.

BUT NOW HOW TO play war games or peace games or other games using
quantum bands and quantum virtual reality simulators
----
well, what happens if you set up a group of people playing war games
(and in the middle is a NearExponentialComputer or for want of words a
PostTuring Computer) or a QD Computer (Quantum-Digital Computer) with
head sets or virtual reality sets on everybody
----
but how to solve the programming problem and how to solve prime-number
hacking (solving encryption/decryption)
-----
well for that your QD computer has to learn language, and then learn
prime numbers, and then do hacking and so forth.

How about simply calling this the EMOTIONAL COMPUTER.

Basically, whatever the bacteria were supposed to do ----- now I'm
saying quantum will do.

And you can just model the brain ----- using knowledge of quantum
physics.

Best Regards,
Erach

Well,
for what you believe is impossible ----
check out http://spacetimemotion.tripod.com

I have personally experienced Dr S N Bhavasar's telemedicine ---- and
it works.
His exercises involve eating butter, ghee, and lots of minor things
---- and some bending and so on. You'll call that "psychology and
faith" on my part.

I know you'll call me a crank.
And check out "urine therapy" on the internet too ----- you'll call me
an even bigger crank.

*****
We have so many computers on the internet ----- tell me are they
programming themselves.
And I think we should use the word "NearExponentialComputer" instead
of hypercomputer.

> You should throw in a little pixie dust from Tinkerbell too...
>
> -- Don
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ d...{}geddis.org
> A Bolshevik speaker promised his audience "come the revolution, we will all
> eat strawberries and cream." "But I dont like strawberries and cream,"
> responded a listener. "Come the revolution we will ALL eat strawberries and
> cream!," the Bolshevik intoned. -- Butler Shaffer

YES ---- A LITTLE PIXIE DUST FROM TINKERBELL TOO.
Dear Don, if you get rid of all the little pixie dust from tinkerbell
---- then stop doing theory because without pixie dust nothing would
advance

Half the world believes in God (including half the USA) ----- and I
ask you --- this wonder we call "understanding data" isn't it a gift
of the Universe. (in other words, you can start revising quantum
theory too ----- to understand where life comes from).

Erach

"erach27{}" <erach27{}> wrote on 9 Apr 2007 23:19:
> What is the architecture of a NearExponentialComputer ?

What is a "NearExponentialComputer"? I've never heard that before.
When you make up new words, would you mind explaining them first?

> for what you believe is impossible ----
> check out http://spacetimemotion.tripod.com

You have left science, and have entered the realm of religion and faith.
You've become too easy a target to even make fun of any more.

> I have personally experienced Dr S N Bhavasar's telemedicine ---- and it
> works. His exercises involve eating butter, ghee, and lots of minor things
> ---- and some bending and so on. You'll call that "psychology and faith"
> on my part.

Exactly, faith. "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote".

> I know you'll call me a crank.

Yes, you're a crank.

> And check out "urine therapy" on the internet too ----- you'll call me
> an even bigger crank.

I'm aware of that topic too. Yes, you're an even bigger crank.

Look, you love all this non-scientific faith-based pseudoscience.
There's tons of stuff you should explore! Astrology, intelligent design,
homeopathic medicine, crystals, UFOs ... gosh, the world has an unending
supply of interesting non-scientific imagined stories. Have fun! Go crazy.

> And I think we should use the word "NearExponentialComputer" instead
> of hypercomputer.

Another mistake. There are many different unrelated designs of abstract
machines that have greater computational power (in theory) than a Turing
Machine. I can only think of one that might be usefully described as a
"near exponential computer" (although you haven't defined the term, so its
hard to tell). But surely your term is far, far more restrictive than
the real field of hypercomputation.

-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don{}geddis.org
"We're surrounded! -- they've got us penned in like veal."
"What is a veal?"
"It's a sort of delicious baby cow in a box."
-- Goats (goats.com), 6/14/2006

I think, neural nets can be trained with quantum physics.
You give an input. Then you compute the superposition of
all weights. Then you compute the super position of all
possible outputs. Then you mask out all weights which do
not yield the target output. And then you have a
global minimum assignment for the weights, for which the
error is zero.

Regards
Thorsten