On 2/10/2012 7:49 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2012/2/10 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

    On 2/10/2012 7:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

    2012/2/10 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com

        On Feb 10, 4:06 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
        <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
        > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
        > > On Feb 9, 9:49 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
        <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
        > > > 2012/2/9 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
        > > > > > > How does a gear or lever have an opinion?
        > > > > > The problems with gears and levers is dumbness.
        > > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in
        an arrangement
        > > > > make them less dumb? Does it start having opinions at
        some point?
        > > > Does putting a billions neurons together in an
        arrangement make them less
        > > > dumb ? Does it start having opinions at some point ?
        > > No, because neurons are living organisms in the first
        place, not
        > > gears.
        > At which point does it start having an opinions ?

At every point when it is alive.

    That's not true, does a single neuron has an opinion ? two ? a
    thousand ?

We may not call them opinions

    Don't switch subject.

        we use that word to refer to an entire human being's
        experience, but
        the point is that being a living cell makes it capable of having
different capacities than it does as a dead cell.

    Yes and so what ? a dead cell *does not* behave like a living
    cell, that's enough.

        When it is dead,
        there is no biological sense going on, only chemical detection-
        reaction, which is time reversible. Biological sense isn't time

        > Why simulated neurons
        > couldn't have opinions at that same point ? Vitalism ?

No, because there is no such thing as absolute simulation,

    There is no need for an "absolute" simulation... what do you mean
    by "absolute" ?

        there is
        only imitation. Simulation is an imitation

    no, simulation is not imitation.

        designed to invite us to
        mistake it for genuine - which is adequate for things we
        don't care
        about much, but awareness cannot be a mistake. It is the absolute
        primary orientation, so it cannot ever be substituted. If you
        synthetic neurons which are very close to natural neurons on
        level, then you have a better chance of coming close enough
        that the
        resulting organism is very similar to the original. A
        simulation which
        is not made of something that forms a cell by itself (an
        actual cell,
        not a virtual sculpture of a cell) probably has no possibility of
        graduating from time reversible detection-reaction to other
        of sense, feeling, awareness, perception, and consciousness,
        just as a
        CGI picture

    A CGI picture *is a picture* not a simulation.

        of a neuron has no chance of producing milliliters of
        actual serotonin, acetylcholine, glutamate,etc.

    Is it needed for consciousness ? why ?



        How would your reasoning work for a virus? Is it "alive"? I
    think that the notion of "being alive" is not a property of the
    parts but of the whole.

Is it a question directed to craig or to me ?

    It is directed at both of you. :-)



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