On Jul 30, 10:30 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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?
Software isn't a thing in the way I'm using the word. It's an idea
that informs a thing.
> What determines what software feels?
The thing it runs on. When you play a computer game, you are running
software on your brain. It feels like a computer game to you. If it
runs on a computer with nobody playing it, there is no computer game
being played, just circuits switching rhythmically.
> > 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?
I don't see why not. There might be a reason, but we wouldn't likely
> And if it were designed with the same organization as a smaller sized brain,
> why wouldn't it?
Organization alone is meaningless. To change the size of the brain
runs into problems with the chemistry.
> > 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.
A person standing next to another person is not the same thing as a
molecule next to another molecule. If the Earth as a whole has a
mental state, it may very well be able to use some arrangement of
human bodies as a kind of neuron or something. On the scale of a
planet, all of that molten iron and nickel swirling around may have a
kind of consciousness that dwarfs our own. It won't be an animal
feeling, with adrenaline and oxytocin emotions, but it could be
unfathomably beautiful to be the biosphere and atmosphere, crust,
mantle, and core with centuries passing like minutes.
> > 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)
Oh hold on. I read it wrong. Sorry . I thought the whole group was
collectively acting as a single neuron. The problem is that acting
like we think a neuron acts and being a neuron are two different
things. If they did a China match instead, where each person pretended
to be a molecule of phosphorous or whatever, there would be no way to
make them act like fire so that there would be heat, flame, etc. The
fact that the brain scales up from neurons is a crazy miraculous
fragile thing, not a mechanical consequence of any old thing times a
billion acting in a certain way. The way it acts is important, but
only if what it is that's acting that way is the appropriate match for
> > Church-Turing is false.
> If you can demonstrate this you will become famous, and probably win a
> Turing award (comes with $250,000).
It's false and it's not falsifiable because it's defining one process
as a function of the other, when in fact they are the same process.
> > > 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.
Heat and light cannot be simulated. They are experiences. It doesn't
matter what the Turing machine is made of if it is not combustible.
> > 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.
I understand what you're saying, but you're not getting my points. The
interior of a machine made of ice has the interior experience of a
machine made of ice, regardless of what that machine is doing. The
experience you have is an experience you are having regardless of what
you are doing or perceiving - it's a human experience.
>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
Yes, except the thought of a computer is not understanding, it's just
circuit navigation. The computer isn't a gestalt entity except in our
experience. Pieces can burn out and it will never know the difference
as a whole, different components will just have shorter circuits to
> > Your ice fire makes
> > no heat, consumes no fuel.
> Not externally, but it would internally.
I understand why that makes sense, but it's incorrect. Heat cannot be
simulated and it cannot be generated by an abstraction. There is no
numerical formula which can create heat in and of itself.
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
For more options, visit this group at