On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:32 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's what I'm questioning. At what level are "input", "output", and > "behavior" defined? Does it include a slight twitch of the eye? a change > in a hormone level in the blood? a transmission via this nerve instead of > that? Does the "behavior" only have to be similar enough to fool the > attentive observer, or does it have to be the same all the way down to > neuron, or sub-neuron level. I'm content to say that fooling the attentive > observer is enough to bet on consciousness. But to be identical > consciousness you would have to go much lower. Maybe even to neuron level. If you substitute a volume of neural tissue with a machine it need only replicate the I/O behaviour at the interface with the surrounding neurons in order to leave the person's behaviour unchanged. What goes on inside the machine may be completely unlike the analogous physiological process but since overall behaviour is unchanged, consciousness must be unchanged if the "fading qualia" problem is to be avoided. The volume of replaced tissue can be made larger and larger until the limit is reached where the whole brain is replaced, leaving only the muscles and sensory organs (and of course these too can eventually be replaced). If the person's behaviour is unchanged then his consciousness is also unchanged, even though the artificial brain functions completely differently to a natural brain. How closely must the substituted parts follow the I/O behaviour of the original neurons at the interface? As closely as is followed by normal neural tissue, which changes from moment to moment correlating with changes in conscious experience. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
