On 8/15/2011 11:08 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
On 8/15/2011 7:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
just like you can simulate flight if you simulate the environment
you are flying in.
But do we need to simulate the entire atmosphere in order to simulate
flight, or just the atmosphere in the immediate area around the
surfaces of the plane? Likewise, it seems we could take shortcuts in
simulating the environment surrounding a mind and get the behavior we
are after.
Why simulate? Why not create a robot with sensors so it can interact
the natural environment.
Brent
[Colin]
Hi Brent,
There seems to be another confusion operating here. What makes you
think I am not creating a robot with sensors? What has this got to do
with simulation?
1) Having sensors is not simulation. Humans have sensors...eg retina.
2) The use of sensors does not connect the robot to the environment in
any unique way. The incident photon could have come across the room or
the galaxy. Nobody tells a human which, yet the brain sorts it out.
Or makes it up. :-)
3) A robot brain based on replication uses sensors like any other robot.
4) What I am saying is that the replication approach will handle the
sensors like a human brain handles sensors.
Of course we don't have to simulate the entire universe to simulate
flight. The fact is we simulate _/some/_ of the environment in order
that flight simulation works. /It's a simulation./ *It's not flight*.
This has nothing to do with the actual problem of real embedded
embodied cognition of an unknown external environment by an AGI. You
don't know it! You are 'cognising' to find out about it. You can't
simulate it and the sensors don't give you enough info. If a human
supplies that info then you're grounding the robot in the human's
cognition, not supplying the robot with its own cognition.
In replication there is no simulating going on! There is inorganic,
artificially derived natural processes identical to what is going on
in a natural brain. Literally. A brain has action potential comms. A
brain has EM comms. Therefore a replicated brain will have the SAME
action potentials mutually interacting with the same EM fields. The
replicant chips will have an EEG/MEG signature like a human. There is
no computing of anything. There is inorganic version of the identical
processes going on in a real brain.
I hope we're closer to being on the same page.
Yes, I agree with the above, except maybe the EM. The brain is
essentially electrically neutral. The chemical reactions change the
local fields as electrons are moved but these are very short range,
atomic scale fields. The overall fields don't seem to matter; otherwise
your thoughts would get scrambled every time you got near an electric
motor or a flourescent light. So when you refer to an "inorganic
version of the identical process going on in a real brain" it's not
clear at what level you mean "identical" - apparently not at the quark
and lepton level. If it's not identical at that level (the lowest
possible) then in what sense is it identical. Computationalism says it
only has to be identical at the level of computing the input/output
function - it's a specific version of functionalism.
Brent
Colin
--
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.
--
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.
