On Aug 16, 8:03 am, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future.
> >> Computers
> >> will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted $1,000 worth of
> >> computer will buy a human brain's worth of computational power. 15 years
> >> later, you can get 1,000 X the human brain's power for $1,000. Imagine:
> >> the
> >> simulated get to experience 1 century for each month the humans with
> >> biological brains experience. Who will really be alive then?
> > Speed and power is for engines, not brains. Good ideas don't come from
> > engines.
> > Craig
> I agree. It is a very narrow to think computational power is the key to rich
> experience and high intelligence. The real magic is what is done with the
> hardware. And honestly I see no reason to believe that we somehow we
> magically develop amazingly intelligent software. Software development is
> slow, no comparison to the exponential progress of hardware.
> I believe that it is inherently impossible to design intelligence. It can
> just self-organize itself through becoming aware of itself. I am not even
> sure anymore whether this will have to do very much to do with technology.
> Technology might have an fundamental restriction to being a tool of
> intelligence, not the means to increase intelligence at the core (just
> relative, superficial intelligence like intellectual knowledge).
I agree. Although technology could help us increase our own
intelligence by modifying the brain's behavior. I can't say that it is
inherently impossible to design intelligence, but like Colin says, it
might have to be designed through recombinant replication.
> Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
> brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go beyond
> the brain, that may be essential to our functioning. The way that
> computational power of the brain is estimated now relies on a quite
> reductionstic view of what the brain is and what it does.
I think of 'energy' in a different way now. It is nothing more than a
perceived event, which is typically shared. Energy has no independent
physical existence, it's not a glowing stuff in a vacuum of space or
an invisible forcefield hovering around metal wires. Energy is just
how physical phenomena are aware of change and the possibility of
change. It is an insistence, and what is insisting depends on what is
existing, but it is not limited to that. A stove can insist that a
cast iron skillet make itself hot, but it can't insist that the
skillet recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
So yes, I think that the psyche is overflowing with subtle awareness
that will never show up on an MRI as anything (or anything more than
some meaningless fuzz that may or may not be related), because some of
what our minds can do can only insist within the context of neurology,
or psychology, or anthropology. Some of what can insist through the
mind can be received through language, or math, or computer chip
logic, but the totality of the psyche and the Self is far greater than
any literal schema it can use to describe itself.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at