Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> >
> > You don't think paramecium behaviour could be modelled on a computer?
> >
> > Stathis Papaiaonnou
> A paramecium can behave like it's perceiving something. I haven't observed
> it myself but I have spoken to people who have and they say they have
> behaviours which betray some sort of awareness beyond the scope of their
> boundary.

Perception can occur *at* a boundary. Touch is perception.

> A teeny paramecium-sized primitive external world model. A teeny
> bit of adaptive behaviour.
> So a computer model?....
> A) that included a model of those aspects of the physics participating in
> what the paramecium could have as experiences.
> B) That included all the molecular pathways (cilia molecules, the lot)
> C) that included a model of the response to the perceptual physics
> D) That included a model of the environment of the paramecium
> would be pretty good. But the model would not be having experiences.


> There's the age old distinction between [modelling perfectly] and [the
> perfect model]. The former aims at "realistic replication". The latter
> aims at "suited to task". I think you could get pretty close to it
> behaviourally. Maybe indistinguishable.
> The way to test it? Make the model drive a nano-robot paramecium shell.
> Then let it live with real paramecium. Then expose both to novelty and see
> what the differences are.

Why should there be any? Any AI worthy of the name will learn
form experience. Doing so at  a human level has not been
achieved, doing so a the paramecium level might be a lot easier.

> I don't think any amount of detail will ever make the model or the
> computer it is running on have experiences...

That's an opinion, not an argument.

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to