On 7/22/2011 8:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:18 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:

Well at least we've got the contradiction compressed down into one
sentence: "Degradation is preserved with high fidelity."
Is it a contradiction to say that someone is having a bad conversation
over clear telephones?

Where does the badness come from?  The afferent neurons?

...A neuron is more than it's communication.
Not to the next neuron it isn't...and not to the efferent neurons.  If
there is something that isn't communicated, it can't make a difference
to behavior because we know that muscles are moved by what the neurons
communicate to them.
Muscles aren't moved by neurons, muscles move themselves in sympathy
with neuronal motivation. Behavior isn't everything, especially a
third person observation of a behavior on an entirely different scale
of physical activity.

But that's the crux of the argument. If behavior isn't everything then, according to you, a person whose brain has been replaced by artificial, but functionally identical elements, could be a philosophical zombie. One who's every behavior is exactly like a person with a biological brain - including reporting the same feelings. Yet that is contrary to your assertion that they would exhibit dementia.

Or as Bruno suggests, just model it at a lower level.  Of course if you
have to model it at the quark level, you might as well make your
artificial neuron out of quarks and it won't be all that "artificial".
Exactly what I've been saying. If you model only the superficial
behaviors, you can't expect the meaningful roots of those behaviors to
appear spontaneously.

No you've been saying more than that. You've been saying that even if the artificial elements emulate the biological ones at a very low level they won't work unless they *are* biological. When I said that if you have to model at the quark level you might as well make up "real" neurons that was a recommendation of efficiency. According to Bruno, and functionalist theory, it might be very inefficient to emulate the quarks with a Turing machine but it is in principle equally effective.

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-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