Chickens can walk around for a while without a head also. It doesn't mean that air is a viable substitute for a head, and it doesn't mean that the head isn't producing a different quality of awareness than it does under typical non-mortally wounded conditions.
On Jul 20, 9:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>So would the person dissociated from these images, or feeling them > >>meaningless or unlreal, etc., ever report these different feelings? > >>Remember, nerves control movement of the vocal cords, if the neural network > >>was unaffected and its operation remained the same all outwardly visible > >>behavior would also be the same. The person could not report any > >>differences with their sense of vision, nor would other parts of their brain > >>(such as those of thought, or introspection, etc.) have any indication that > >>the nerves in the visual cortex has been modified (so long as they continued > >>to send the right signals at the right times). > > > I'm saying that without DNA in the neurons, or something which > > functions exactly as DNA, it may not be possible to satisfy the given > > that the neural network is unaffected. It's all a matter of what the > > substitution level is. If you replaced water with heavy water, it's > > not exactly the same thing. If you have something that acts like water > > in all ways, it's nothing but water. If you have a brain made of > > neurons that are not neurons, you have something other than a brain to > > one degree or another, depending on the exact difference. If you are > > stating as a given that there is no difference between the replacement > > brain from a biological brain, then the replacement brain is nothing > > but a biological brain. > > The requirement is that the artificial neurons interact with the > biological neurons in the normal way, so that the biological neurons > can't tell that they are imposters. This is a less stringent > requirement than making artificial neurons that are indistinguishable > from biological neurons under any test whatsoever. In the example I > gave before, removing the DNA from a neuron would at least for a few > minutes continue behaving normally so the surrounding neurons would > not detect that anything had changed, whereas an electron micrograph > might easily show the difference. > > -- 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
