From: Phillip Huggan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 17 2006 - 12:25:10 MST
Where has computation ever produced intelligent behaviour? Unless you mean the type of intelligent behaviour that evolution has produced too. Surely that process can't be described as computation.
A computer is one class of physical systems. Our brains are another. Surely you won't postulate that a synapse can occur using lego brains and lego neurotransmitters right? That is a question I've asked over and over again on this list and yet to receive a yes or no answer..
The sticking point appears to be that computers utilize electrons which resemble our ion channels somewhat. I'm saying the class of electro-chemical reactions needed for consciousness is too exclusive to admit present computer architectures. You are saying electrons + chips = thoughts. My theory is proveable. Surely particle accelerators and experimental studies of animal architectures have already revealed the mysterious "x-particle" I've postulated.
The human brain is the most complex object in the universe. I've just learned there are elctrical synapses in addition to chemical synapses. I've just learned some of the neat chemical-electrical interactions that go on inside our brains. This is too big a field to just google my way to an explanation. I'm ranking microfinance institutions, I will be reading up on how diamond surfaces respond to electricity. I suggest that since you KNOW legos can't make consciousness even though they maybe can be used as a computer, and you think that electron carrying computer circuitry can think; I suggest you trace what critical computer hardware component facilitates thought. If you discover the answer to be electricity, I think you'll see our human EM fields are very different than are Intel chip's. You'll move a lot closer to my position that consciousness is a physical (PHYSIC-al) process, than computational legos.
Computer's can't make a nuclear reactor, right? Computers can't make a wheel-barrow even though all the components can be perfectly simulated. I'm saying consciousness is physical too. You can simulate meatty brains, but you will only get simulated cement slabs and simulated thoughts.
fudley <email@example.com> wrote:
> but they are interacting with something in the
> fabric of reality that is producing our subjective
> experiences. Computation really isn't relevant to this process.
So its just a huge coincidence that computation and subjective
experiences both produce intelligent behavior, and it is another
astronomical coincidence that Evolution ever bothered to produced
subjectivity. I don’t think so.
I might add that even if your theory were true you could never, EVER,
prove it; so it is not Science. And is your faith so strong that even if
an AI insisted it was conscious and was screaming in agony begging you
to stop torturing it you would just ignore it and continue with your
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 21 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT