>You might find out that molecules in brain are unconscious too.

The fact that consciousness changes predictably when different
molecules are introduced to the brain, and that we are able to produce
different molecules by changing the content of our consciousness
subjectively suggests to me that it makes sense to give molecules the
benefit of the doubt.

>What in the brain would be not Turing emulable

Let's take the color yellow for example. If you build a brain out of
ideal ping pong balls, or digital molecular emulations, does it
perceive yellow from 580nm oscillations of electromagnetism
automatically, or does it see yellow when it's own emulated units are
vibrating on the functionally proportionate scale to itself? Does the
ping pong ball brain see it's own patterns of collisions as yellow or
does yellow = electromagnetic ~580nm and nothing else. At what point
does the yellow come in? Where did it come from? Were there other
options? Can there ever be new colors? From where? What is the minimum
mechanical arrangement required to experience yellow?

>You need to speculate
> on a new physics,

Yes, I do speculate on a new physics. I think that what we can
possibly see outside of ourselves is half of what exists. What we
experience is only a small part of the other half. Physics wouldn't
change, but it would be seen as the exterior half of a universal
topology. I did a post this morning that might help: 
http://s33light.org/post/7453105138

I do appreciate your point, and I think there is great value in
studying cognitive mechanics and pursuing AGI regardless of it's
premature assumption to lead to synthetic consciousness. I think that
physicalism and mechanism are both useful in their appropriate
contexts - the brain does have physical organization which determines
how consciousness develops, just as a cell phone or desktop determines
how the internet is presented. It's a bidirectional flow of influence.
We unknowingly affect the brain and the brain unknowingly affects us.
They are two intertwined but mutually ignorant topologies of the same
ontological coin.

Craig


On Jul 9, 2:35 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2011, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Sure, it would be great to have improved synthetic bodies, but I have
> > no reason to believe that depth and quality of consciousness is
> > independent from substance. If I have an artificial heart, that
> > artificiality may not affect me as much as having an artificial leg,
> > however, an artificial brain means an artificial me, and that's a
> > completely different story. It's like writing a computer program to
> > replace computer users. You might find out that digital circuits are
> > unconscious by definition.
>
> You might find out that molecules in brain are unconscious too.
> What in the brain would be not Turing emulable? You need to speculate  
> on a new physics, or on the fact that a brain would be a very special  
> analogical infinite machine. Why not?
> You might still appreciate my point. I don't think that today someone  
> shown that comp leads to a contradiction, but comp leads to a  
> reappraisal of the relation between first person and 3 person, or, at  
> some other level, of consciousness and matter, and this in a testable  
> way.
> But there is no problem with what you say. If you believe in  
> physicalism, then indeed mechanism is no more an option.
> In my opinion, mechanism is more plausible than physicalism, and also  
> more satisfactory in explaining where the "illusion" of matter come  
> from. Actually I don't know of any other explanation.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 12:14 am, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Indeed, why? Any talk of 'artificial circuits' might risk the  
> >> patient saying 'No' to the doctor. I want real, digital circuits.  
> >> Meat circuits are fine, though there might be something better. I  
> >> mean, if something better than 'skin' comes along, I'll swap my  
> >> skin for that. Probably need the brain upgrade anyway to read the  
> >> new skin. You could even make me believe I had a new skin via the  
> >> firmware in the brain upgrade. No need to change skin at all.
>
> >> I could even sell you a brain upgrade that looked like it was  
> >> composed of meat when in fact it was a bunch of something else. You  
> >> only have to believe what your brain presents you.
>
> >> Kim Jones
>
> >> On 09/07/2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >>>> Replacing parts of the brain depends what the artificial circuits  
> >>>> are
> >>>> made of. For them to be experienced as something like human
> >>>> consciousness then I think they would have to be made of biological
> >>>> tissue.
>
> >>> Why?  Biological tissue is made out of protons, neutrons, and  
> >>> electrons just like computer chips.  Why should anything other  
> >>> than their input/output function matter?
>
> > --
> > 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 
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> > .
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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