2010/1/12 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> 2010/1/12 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I know.  I'm trying to see what exactly is being assumed about the
>>> computation being "the same".  Is it the same Platonic algorithm?   Is it
>>> one that has the same steps as described in FORTRAN, but not those in
>>> LISP?
>>>  Is it just one that has the same input-output?  I think these are
>>> questions
>>> that have been bypassed in the "yes doctor" scenario.  Saying "yes" to
>>> the
>>> doctor seems unproblematic when you think of replacing a few neurons with
>>> artificial ones - all you care about is the input-output.  But then when
>>> you
>>> jump to replacing a whole brain maybe you care about the FORTRAN/LISP
>>> differences. Yet on this list there seems to be an assumption that you
>>> can
>>> just jump to the Platonic algorithm or even a Platonic computation that's
>>> independent of the algorithm.   Bruno pushes all this aside by referring
>>> to
>>> "at the appropriate level" and by doing all possible algorithms.  But I'm
>>> more interested in the question of what would I have to do to make a
>>> conscious AI.  Also, it is the assumption of a Platonic computation that
>>> allows one to slice it discretely into OMs.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Start by replacing neurons with artificial neurons which are driven by
>> a computer program and whose defining characteristic is that they copy
>> the I/O behaviour of biological neurons. The program has to model the
>> internal workings of a neuron down to a certain level. It may be that
>> the position and configuration of every molecule needs to be modelled,
>> or it may be that shortcuts such as a single parameter for the
>> permeability of ion channels in the cell membrane make no difference
>> to the final result. In any case, there are many possible programs
>> even if the same physical model of a neuron is used, and the same
>> basic program can be written in any language and implemented on any
>> computer: all that matters is that the artificial neuron works
>> properly. (As an aside, we don't need to worry about whether these
>> artificial neurons are zombies, since that would lead to absurd
>> conclusions about the nature of consciousness.) From the single neuron
>> we can progress to replacing the whole brain, the end result being a
>> computer program interacting with the outside world through sensors
>> and effectors. The program can be implemented in any way - any
>> language, any hardware - and the consciousness of the subject will
>> remain the same as long as the brain behaviour remains the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You're asserting that neuron I/O replication is the "appropriate level" to
> make "brain behavior" the same; and I tend to agree that would be sufficient
> (though perhaps not necessary).  But that's preserving a particular
> algorithm; one more specific than the Platonic computation of its
> equivalence class.  I suppose a Turing machine could perform the same
> computation, but it would perform it very differently.  And I wonder how the
> Turing machine would manage perception.  The organs of perception would have
> their responses digitized into bit strings and these would be written to the
> TM on different tapes?  I think this illustrates my point that, while
> preservation of consciousness under the digital neuron substitution seems
> plausible, there is still another leap in substituting an abstract
> computation for the digital neurons.
>
> Also, such an AI brain would not permit slicing the computations into
> arbitrarily short time periods because there is communication time involved
> and neurons run asynchronously.
>

Yes you can, freeze the computation, dump memory... then load memory back,
and defreeze. If the time inside the computation is an internal feature (a
counter inside the program), the AI associated to the computation cannot
notice anything if on the other hand the time inside of the computation is
an input parameter from some external then it can notice... but I always can
englobe the whole thing and feed that external time from another program or
whatever.

The fact that you can disrupt a computation and restart it with some
different parameters doesn't mean you can't restart it with *exactly* the
same parameters as when you froze it.

Quentin



>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to