On 12/22/2014 4:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:39:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
consciousness is favored. Personally, I think "integrated" is a
vague concept and amounts to "and then a miracle happens" without
some further elucidation.
Brent
See arXiv:1405.0126 for a quite explicit quantification of what
"integrated" means.
I haven't yet had a chance to fully digest the paper, or take a
position on it, but it seems the charge of it being a vague concept is
not valid.
It's interesting that they don't want "lossy" information integration:
/"While it seems intuitve for the brain to discard irrelevant details from
sensory inp//
//ut, it seems undesirable for it to also hemorrhage meaningful content. In particular,
memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would
cause them to gradually decay//"/
Yet that is exactly what is observed. Each time you recall something you modify it, so it
tends to become a confabulation.
Their concept of "integration" is simply "scrambled together" so what we would intuitively
call "a piece of information" cannot be physically localized or disentangled. They
quantify this by edit distance. But if I understand it correctly the same "scrambling"
that makes editing impossible would also make integrating new information impossible. And
while information may be difficult to localize, it does get disentangled so that when you
ask someone a question they can answer that specific question.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
