On 2/20/07, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Stathis (barging in to your post to Mark);
> Your premis is redundant, a limited model (machine) cannot be (act,
> perform, sense, react etc.) identical to the total it was cut out from.  So
> you cannot prove it either<G>. As i GOT the difference lately, so I would
> use 'simulated' instead of 'emulated' if I got it right. Even the 3rd p and
> as you restrict it: "observable" behavior is prone to MY 1st p.
> interpretation (distortion).
> "Of the brain"? if you extend it into "the tool of mental behavior" it
> refers to more than just the tissue-machine up to our today's level of
> knowledge. Penrose (though not a friendly correspondent) is smart (happens
> to Nobelist also) in assuming more than computable. His (if he used it
> really) "brain" must be that all inclusive total complexity of all related
> networks.

Whatever today's level of knowledge about it, the brain does what the brain
does inside the skull, no? If you remove the brain, then you remove the
consciousness. Also, Roger Penrose has not received a Nobel prize; neither
has Stephen Hawking.

What I really wanted to stress is your expression "purpose" in evolution. (I
> am not 'in' for the 'zombie craze' because a person without *anything*
> belonging to 'it' is not "the person"), but the *purpose* in conventional
> 'evolution-talk' points to the ID camouflage of creationism. Evolutionary
> mutation does not occur 'in order to' better sustainability (a purpose) -
> rather 'because of'' - in variations induced by the changes in the totality
> (an entailment).

I agree in general, we have to be careful when using words such as "purpose"
when discussing evolution. We can talk about evolution "choosing" animals
with heavier coats when the climate gets colder, because the heavier coats
serve a "purpose" in increasing the animal's survival advantage. Of course,
this is just convenient talk: evolution is blind and stupid.

How intensely some change may influence 'us' is still my terra incognita to
> be explored.
> (In my 'evolution' term i.e. the history of a universe from occurring from
> the plenitude all the way to re-smoothening into it I include a 'purpose: to
> facilitate such 're-smoothening from the incipient unavoidable
> complexity-formation from the plenitude's infinite invariant symmetry - see
> my 'Multiverse-narrative).
> John

I often find your posts difficult to understand, John, although that puts
you in good company :)

On 2/18/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
> > > assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, wherein
> > > it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate some or all 
> > > of a
> > > person's body/brain function and the person will not notice any 
> > > difference.
> > > The Yes Doctor hypothesis is a particular case of the digital emulation
> > > hypothesis in which it is asserted that, basically, ANYTHING can be
> > > digitally emulated if one had enough computational resources available. As
> > > this seems to me to be almost a version of Comp [at least as far as I have
> > > got with reading Bruno's exposition] then from my simple minded 
> > > perspective
> > > it looks rather like assuming the very thing that needs to be 
> > > demonstrated.
> > >
> >
> > You can't prove that a machine will be conscious in the same way you
> > are. There is good reason to believe that the third person observable
> > behaviour of the brain can be emulated, because the brain is just chemical
> > reactions and chemistry is a well-understood field. (Roger Penrose believes
> > that something fundamentally non-computable may be happening in the brain
> > but he is almost on his own in this view.) However, it is possible that the
> > actual chemical reactions are needed for consciousness, and a computer
> > emulation would be a philosophical zombie. I think it is very unlikely that
> > something as elaborate as consciousness could have developed with no
> > evolutionary purpose (evolution cannot distinguish between me and my zombie
> > twin if zombies are possible), but it is a logical possibility.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Reply via email to