On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Colin Hales
<c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> This means we are hooked into the external world in ways that are not
> present in the peripheral nerves. Looking at the (nerves pulses) signals, it
> is impossible to tell if they are vision, smell, touch or anything else.
> Those that think that a computer can add this extra bit of connectivity to
> the external world, believe in comp/COMP. When you replace the brain with a
> model of a brain using a computer, that "extra" bit, the connection with the
> outside world we get from our qualia,...the qualia created by the brain
> matter itself, is replaced by the qualia you get by 'being' the computer.
>
> If you believe comp/COMP, then you believe that the computer's model -or -
> the computer hardware itself -  somehow replaces the function of the qualia,
> by analysing the sensory signalling, which is fundamentally degenerately
> related to the external world. Only a human with qualia can, from sensory
> signals, provide any sort of model for our 'computer-in-a-vat' that might
> stand-in for an external world. Having done that, the world being explored
> by our computer-in-a-vat is the world of the human model generated from the
> sensory signals, not the world itself. When an encounter with the unknown
> happens, then the unknown will be chacterized by a human model's response to
> the unknown, not the (unknown) actual world. The extent to which these
> things are different is the key.
>
> Neuroscience is beginning to progress from NCC (Neural correlates of
> consciousness) to EMCC (electromagnetic correlates of consciousness).
> Researchers are slowly discovering that certain aspects of cognition and
> behaviour correlate better with the LFP (local field potential/extracellular
> field) than mere action potentials.
>
> If the EM fields are the difference, then in replacing the fields of the
> brain with the fields of the computer running a model...and your
> qualia/cognition go with it.
>
> So when you think of the 'input/output' relations for a computer, the
> sensory signalling is only part of it. There is another complete set of
> 'input' relations, qualia, that together with the sensory signals, form our
> real connection to the outside world. So the old black-box replacement idea
> is right - but only if the black box has a whole other set of 'input'
> signals, from the qualia. The only way you can computationally replace these
> signals is to already know everything about the external world already. Your
> alternative? Keep the qualia in your 'black box'. To me that means
> generating the fields as well.
>
> Don't get me wrong. Lots of really nifty AI can result from the
> 'computer-in-a-vat'. However, that's not what I am aiming at. I want AGI. G
> for General.

Can the behaviour of the neurons including the electric fields be
simulated? For example, is it possible to model what will happen in
the brain (and what output will ultimately go to the muscles via
peripheral nerves) if a particular sequence of photons hits the
retina? If that is a theoretical impossibility then where exactly is
the non-computable physics, and what evidence do you have that it is
non-computable?


-- 
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 
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