On Jul 23, 12:02 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 12:14 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On 7/22/2011 8:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > > Where does the badness come from?  The afferent neurons?
> > It comes from the diminishing number of real neurons participating in
> > the network, or, more likely, the unfavorable ration of neurons to
> > pegs.
> Ie, the replacements are not functionally equivalent, even though
> they are stipulated as being equivalent.

No. You're equating the function of the network with the identity of
the participants. I can have an incoherent conversation over a crystal
clear phone system if I am trying to talk to people who are no longer
there, but have only voicemail. Even elaborate voicemail which
operates at the phonetic level to generate AI responses in any
language is not necessarily going to be able to answer my questions:
'Hey Freddie28283457701, did you get the glutamate I ordered yet?'
'Thank you for calling. Your call is important to us. Please stay on
the line'. 'Wow that really sounds just like you Freddie, now where is
the damn glutamate?'

> Indentical in all relevant aspects is good enough. That's a necessary
> truth.

It's not possible to know what the relevant aspects are. What are the
relevant aspects of yellow?

> It might
> be the case that all relevant aspects are all aspects (IOW.,holism is
> true
> and functionalism is false). That isnt  a necessary truth either way.
> It
> needs to be argued on the basis of some sort of evidence.

Not necessarily all aspects, but my hypothesis is that you need
material technologies to simulate more than the top level semantic i/
o. Water seems to be important in distinguishing that which can live
and that which cannot. I might start there.

> > To set the equivalence between the natural and artificial neuron in
> > advance is to load the question.
> and vice versa.

The burden of proof is on the hypothetical artificial neuron to prove
it's equivalent. The natural neuron doesn't have to prove that it's
nothing more than the artificial one since we know for a fact that our
entire world is somehow produced in the brain without any external
evidence whatsoever of that world.

> > It's not that they have to *be* biological, it's that the simulation
> > has to use materials which can honor the biological level of
> > intelligence as well as the neurological.
> Why? If what you have is a functional black
> box ITFP, the it doens't mater what is inside
> the black box.

It does if you ARE the black box.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to