On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Jul 30, 5:44 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > pain in their thigh? > > > > > The China brain can't simulate the interior sense of a neuron. It's > > > just a dynamic sculpture. > > > > So the only sturcture in the universe that can perceive are neurons or > > groups of neurons? > > No, not at all. Everything perceives like what it is, Even software? What determines what software feels? not like a > neuron. With the internet, civilization may developing something like > a nervous system. Notice that we make and experience the memes. The > network itself, the switches and routers do not create or experience > memes. In the same way our lives are the shared experience of our > cells as well as our bodies, culture, etc. > > It has to be biochemical, using only certain atoms with > > certain numbers of electrons and protons. However, if there are too many > > neurons (as in an entire brain) then these cannot be used as more > primitive > > building blocks in a larger brain? > > It can build a something larger, it just doesn't necessarily cohere as > a single entity, and if it did, it may not resemble ourselves. > But it could? And if it were designed with the same organization as a smaller sized brain, why wouldn't it? > > It seems you say the material matters, > > but only to a point. Brains are made of the same exact materials of > > neurons, but a brain made out of a bunch of neurons will be conscious, > yet a > > brain made out of a bunch of brains would not be conscious. Here I must > > ask, is it really the material that makes the difference or is it the > > function? If it is the function, and you make the brains functionally > > identical to individual neurons, then why won't the big brain (made up of > > many smaller brains) work? > > The conjoined twins show that brains can be combined. It's the > material and the function. > >From this it follows that a China brain would have mental states: it has the same material and function. > > > > No, Block is right. The China brain fails for the same reason as > > > inorganic materials fail. It's not the same thing. > > > > It is the same thing materially, > > how do you figure? A human body is the same thing as a molecule in a > neuron? > A human brain is made of neurons, the china brain is made of neurons. (The brains of many individuals each functioning as a neuron does in a more conventional brain) > > >and the same thing functionally. The only > > difference is size. Are giants and midgets somehow differently conscious > > from average-sized humans. > > > > > Fire can't be > > > simulated by water. > > > > This is propaganda. It is meant to be short and convince people who > don't > > give it much thought, but if one considers deeply the consequences of > > Church-Turing, they will find it to be false. > > Church-Turing is false. > If you can demonstrate this you will become famous, and probably win a Turing award (comes with $250,000). > > > Explain why fire cannot be > > simulated by water? > > Because fire is a reaction which produces heat and light, and water > does not. > That is not an argument against my assertion that a Turing machine made of water can simulate the heat light and reaction products of fire. > > Show: What about fire cannot be simulated, and what > > prevents water from being used to construct a Turing machine. I can > imagine > > a sheet of ice in space, upon which snow balls can be placed in different > > configurations by big ice gears, all of which is powered by a water wheel > > driving a gigantic ice turbine. > > Again, you're just bringing the assumptions of a flawed model to their > absurd conclusions. Not trying to criticize you personally, I'm just > saying it's plain that water cannot simulate fire. You are confusing the exterior and interior. On the interior there is fire, in the exterior there is a Turing machine made of water. On the interior there is thought and sensation, in the exterior there is a brain. On the interior is thought and sensation, in the exterior there is a man-made computer. > Your ice fire makes > no heat, consumes no fuel. Not externally, but it would internally. > It's just an image of a part of what fire > seems like to you. No more like fire than an oil rig is like a > mosquito. > > > > My whole point in the Mickey Mouse anecdote is to > > > demonstrate clearly that no organization of human bodies is going to > > > generate it's own experience. You could have a trillion Chinas making > > > a Mickey Mouse move and act in silent movies, but without a human to > > > see it from the air, there is no movie, no Mickey. > > > > It sees itself, just as you can read your own thoughts without someone > > having to put you in an MRI and inspect them. > > There is no it. It's only us who interpret the separate bodies as a > 'group' or crowd. There may be some autopoetic potential at some > point, but we can't assume that is going to happen. Someone had the > observation that the number 10 billion seems to correspond with > quantum leaps of synergy.. we'll have to see if that turns out to be > true with human population. > Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.