On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:35:33 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> As I said, "the numbers of comp are converted to analog form signals 
> and interfaced to the brain." The numbers in time are essentially 
> waveforms, even if they are pretty erratic. You output the numbers
> through a f/2 filter as voltages and supply those to the brain.
>

I don't see any benefit in converting them from one form to another. What 
difference does it make? If you can convert numbers into anything physical 
at all, why not just convert them directly into voltage changes in the 
brain? It's still metaphysical magic any way you slice it. What could 
convert numbers into wave forms? What would be the benefit. If numbers 
magically turn into the essence of wavyness which can be exported into 
matter, why not skip the wavyness and just enumerate the brain function 
directly? Why not skip the brain altogether and have numbers turn directly 
into qualia? Why have qualia at all?

Craig
 

>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] <javascript:>
> 12/5/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-12-05, 08:26:26
> *Subject:* Re: The final solution -> How comp could work in the brain
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:19:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>   
>> The final solution -> How comp could work in the brain
>>   
>> Peirce is known to have borrowed some ideas from Locke,
>> the most likely one being Locke's philosophy of mind,
>> namely that the mind is a blank slate and that all knowledge
>> is obtained through the senses. 
>>  
>> Comp could in fact provide such sensory signals if the
>> numbers of comp are converted to analog form signals
>> and interfaced to the brain. Presumably this is how 
>> digital implants work.  
>>
>
> But nothing can convert 'numbers' into sensory signals, and if it could, 
> we wouldn't need comp. In order to get sensory signals out of our computer, 
> we need a specially constructed screen which stimulates our human eyes. The 
> screen itself needs electronic signals from actual semiconductor chips 
> which are plugged into an electrical power source. If numbers could be 
> converted directly, then all of this would be unnecessary. We could use 
> empty space as a computer, or a computer that is powered off. Transistors 
> should be able to find memory addresses without electric power, just by 
> converting them into signals.
>
>  
>
>>   
>> So in principle comp could work.
>>
>
> It could work, but not in the universe that we actually live in.
>  
>
>>   
>>  A possibly workable scheme would begin with
>> comp forming signs or  representations in the brain
>> with electrical signals. Then what ?
>>
>
> Then you already have consciousness. You are looking for a bridge from 
> function to substance to consciousness when consciousness already is the 
> capacity to experience functions and substance.
>
> Craigh
>
>  
>
>>    
>>  Then the life in the brain-- its intelligence-- takes over.  
>> The resultant thinking would be semiotic: 
>> the interpretation of such signs and manipulation of them
>> by this intelligence according to Peirce's logic system. 
>>  
>> eg 
>>  
>> S1 + S2 = S3
>>   
>> Problem solved. Case closed. Comp works. :-)
>>   
>>  
>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>> 12/1/2012 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>  
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> *From:* Roger Clough 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-12-01, 04:46:19
>> *Subject:* What is semiotics ? Of what use is it to comp ?
>>
>>   What is semiotics ? Of what use is it to comp ?
>>  
>> To the semiotician, the world consists of extended things and 
>> their inextended representations called signs. The physical and
>> the nonphysical. So not dissimilar to the world of Leibniz.
>>  
>> There are two related branches of the study of signs. One,
>> called semiotics, is more properly the study of the logic of signs,
>> is what I shall be addressing, and was developed by CS Peirce.  
>> The other branch, called semiosis, was developed by Saussure.
>> It is the study of the application of signs (frequently words 
>> or language) socially, in the world outside. A basic branch 
>> of this study involves linguistics and the study of structures 
>> in language.
>>  
>> So Peirce's semiotics is based on logical mental phenomena,
>> while Saussure's semioses deals with the use and
>> meanings of words and phrases socially in the world at large.  
>>  
>> Semiotics, being logical, appears to me to be the proper branch to 
>> study together with comp.
>>  
>>  [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>> 12/1/2012 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>  
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/7q-e8AsvTpUJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/nSjfuvzoO_IJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to