Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: neuroscience – Page 964

Scott Aaronson — The Winding Road to Quantum Supremacy

This was the first part in an interview series with Scott Aaronson — this one is on quantum computing — other segments are on Existential Risk, consciousness (including Scott’s thoughts on IIT) and thoughts on whether the universe is discrete or continuous.

First part in an interview series with Scott Aaronson — this one is on quantum computing — future segments will be on Existential Risk, consciousness (including Scott’s thoughts on IIT) and thoughts on whether the universe is discrete or continuous.

See ‘Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments’
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/quantumsupre.pdf

Bio : Scott Aaronson is a theoretical computer scientist and David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary areas of research are quantum computing and computational complexity theory.

He blogs at Shtetl-Optimized: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

Continue reading “Scott Aaronson — The Winding Road to Quantum Supremacy” | >

The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine

Interview with Scott Aaronson — covering whether quantum computers could have subjective experience, whether information is physical and what might be important for consciousness — he touches on classic philosophical conundrums and the observation that while people want to be thorough-going materialists, unlike traditional computers brain-states are not obviously copyable. Aaronson wrote about this his paper ‘The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine’ (found here https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159). Scott also critiques Tononi’s integrated information theory (IIT).

Scott discusses whether quantum computers could have subjective experience, whether information is physical and what might be important for consciousness — he touches on classic philosophical conundrums and the observation that while people want to be thorough-going materialists, unlike traditional computers brain-states are not obviously copyable. Aaronson wrote about this his paper ‘The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine’ (found here https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159). Scott also critiques Tononi’s integrated information theory (IIT).

Questions include:
- In “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?” you speculate that a process has to ‘fully participate in the arrow of time’ to be conscious, and this points to decoherence. If pressed, how might you try to formalize this?

- In “Is ‘information is physical’ contentful?” you note that if a system crosses the Schwarzschild bound it collapses into a black hole. Do you think this could be used to put an upper bound on the ‘amount’ of consciousness in any given physical system?

- One of your core objections to IIT is that it produces blatantly counter-intuitive results. But to what degree should we expect intuition to be a guide for phenomenological experience in evolutionarily novel contexts? I.e., Eric Schwitzgebel notes “Common sense is incoherent in matters of metaphysics. There’s no way to develop an ambitious, broad-ranging, self- consistent metaphysical system without doing serious violence to common sense somewhere. It’s just impossible. Since common sense is an inconsistent system, you can’t respect it all. Every metaphysician will have to violate it somewhere.”

Continue reading “The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine” | >

Scientists Figured Out How to Separate Pain From Physical Suffering

“We wanted to be more precise here and identify the region and the cells that are responsible for pain unpleasantness,” Scherrer tells Inverse. “We thought if we could find the center, or the cells in the brain that make pain unpleasant, perhaps acting on these cells could be a good strategy to reduce pain in chronic pain patients.”

It’s already established that the amygdala plays a role in the emotional component of pain, but this team actually found the exact cells in the amygdala responsible for those unpleasant pain messages by using a “miniscope,” a tool created by Schnitzer, and observing how mice responded to painful stimuli.

When mice in their experiment were exposed to a drop of scalding water, a given a pinprick, or asked to run along unpleasantly hot tracks, these cells in the amygdala were highly active. Importantly, Schnitzer adds, they didn’t light up when the mice were exposed to other stimuli like sugar water or a bad smell. “Every time mice were unpleased with the stimulation, we saw that these cells were turned on,” he adds.

What I learned at work this year

As I look back on the year, I am also thinking about the specific areas I work on. Some of this is done through our foundation but a lot of it (such as my work on energy and Alzheimer’s work) is not. What connects it all is my belief that innovation can save lives and improve everyone’s well-being. A lot of people underestimate just how much innovation will make life better.

Here are a few updates on what’s going well and what isn’t with innovation in some areas where I work.

Bill Gates looks back on 2018, and shares a few thoughts on what’s going well and what isn’t with innovation in some specific areas that he works on.

Leaky blood-brain barrier identified as potential early-warning sign for Alzheimer’s

New research published in the journal Nature Medicine has described the results of a five-year study into the association between a breakdown of the blood-brain barrier and the onset of cognitive impairment. The study suggests leaky capillaries in the brain can act as an early biomarker of cognitive decline, and a new drug being developed for stroke patients may be an effective treatment.

Nine disability claimants die every day while waiting for their benefits

To be approved, government figures have shown.

More than 17,000 people have died in the past seven years while waiting for their disability benefit claim to be approved, according to figures obtained by The Independent.

The claimants, who were in the process of claiming a type of benefit named the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), were reportedly suffering from a mixture of terminal illnesses and disabilities, including anxiety and depression while they waited for their benefits to be paid.

Would You Zap Your Brain to Improve Your Memory?

Using a few wires and sponges, in ordinary homes around the world, people are trying to hack their own minds. Thanks to a 2002 study that found a link between brain transcranial direct current stimulation and better motor task performance, “do-it-yourself” brain stimulation has become a growing movement among those who want to improve a whole host of cognitive and psychological functions, including language skills, mood and memory.

Scientists are split about the practice: Some say that while brain stimulators might not work as advertised (the ones available to purchase can cost hundreds of dollars), these devices are more-or-less safe. Others think the technique could cause damage, even if done in a controlled, clinical setting. Though “brain hackers” may be disappointed with their own results, their hope about the technology’s potential is rooted in an increasing amount of evidence.

The earliest clinical uses of brain stimulation date back to nearly 2000 years ago, when physician Scribonius Largus recommended the use of electric rayfish to treat headaches and neuralgia. By the 1980s, researchers began designing non-invasive stimulators and brain implants for treating specific diseases. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) — a non-invasive treatment that uses direct electrical currents to stimulate specific parts of the brain — has been shown, in a few small studies, to purportedly improve language skills, boost memory and strengthen reflexes. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), another non-invasive procedure, is sometimes used to treat depression. And clinical trials are underway to see if stimulating the brain can treat other medical conditions, such as Parkinson’s.