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 <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Craig Weinberg <> 
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to