Re: Internet as Mind

Ray Gardener wrote:

> It is also for that reason that I would say (to respond to Pattys' "Internet
> as Mind" post) that the Internet is not yet a mind, because none of its
> parts are small enough. The arrangement may suffice, but the building blocks
> must shrink a bit more.
>
> Which also means that, if we succeed in building a quantum computer with a
> sufficient number of qubits, that we may find it exhibiting mindlike
> properties. Which is good -- we have theory, prediction, and experiment
> (although the last will admittedly take some time to fully perform).


Hmmm ... Penrose and qbits ... see:
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/slide%20show/slideshow_intro.htm

But I doubt that there is any requirement placed on the size 
of the elements on which some phenomenon can supervenes. 
What restrains this this thing called "mind" to quantum 
phenomenon?


Whn not look at the process functionally - make a list of 
the functional properties of what we consider to be a human 
mind - compare that to a similar list of properties of the 
Internet.  If it walks and talks and ...etc ... like a duck, 
why shouldnt we just call it a duck regardless of its 
parentage ?

Patty