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

> 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.


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