>The point I made earlier, 'I am a HLUT' - and it may have seemed facetious - >is that we are, in fact, HLUTs. You draw your 'inside' and 'outsied' >boundary as you wish (it's all arbitrary), then look something up by >stimulating the inside (brain,HLUT, whatever) with a request. You get an >answer, returned by the HLUT. The fact that it is a mass of competing >neurones, with molecular-level interactions, not a nice silicone-based >database, is irrelevant. The fact that part of the 'stimulus' is given by >'internal' factors such as levels of dopamine, is irrelevant. > >You can view the neurones as a compressed version of the HLUT database. If >you gave me a HLUT to compress and sufficient resources, I might end up >giving you a wet brain. > >Any system will return certain responses to certain stimulii. You are >arguing that the form somehow determines the function of the system. > >Your denial of Hans's points necessitates that there are certain internal >functions of the conscious entity which CANNOT be viewed as outputs, such as >dreams. So the onus is on you to prove that dreams cannot be viewed as >outputs. > >I won't bother refuting Gilles's final point, that the HLUT is 'too big' >to be conscious. Anyway, why should the HLUT be bigger than a brain? There >is a helluvalot of information stored in the configuration of a human brain >- quark by quark. A brain may be the most efficient rendering of a HLUT. > >I wish I had more time to refute these daft anthromorphocentric reactions to >the HLUT's valid claim to consciousness. But I don't. > >James
I need details on the way HLUT is working. How do you HLUT answer the question: "What is the color of your shirt?" and this other question: "What was the color of your shirt last Sunday?" Gilles
