On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 10:30 am, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 3/27/2018 3:59 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:56:18 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/27/2018 2:26 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 7:27 am, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 3/27/2018 10:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 1:50 am, Lawrence Crowell < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 7:21:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27 March 2018 at 09:35, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/26/2018 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are not and never can be aware of it then in what sense is it >>>>>> consciousness? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Depends on what you mean by "it". I can be aware of my >>>>>> consciousness, without being aware that it is different than it was >>>>>> before; >>>>>> just as I can be aware of my consciousness without knowing whether it is >>>>>> the same as yours, or the same as some robot. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I am given a brain implant to try out for a few days and I notice >>>>> no difference with the implant (everything feels exactly the same if I >>>>> switch it in or out of circuit), everyone I know agrees there is no change >>>>> in me, and every test I do with the implant switched in or out of circuit >>>>> yields the same results, then I think there would be no good reason to >>>>> hesitate in saying yes to the implant. If the change it brings about is >>>>> neither objectively nor subjectively obvious, it isn't a change. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> >>>> >>>> This argument ignores scaling. With any network you can replace or >>>> change nodes and connections on a small scale and the system remains >>>> largely unchanged. At a certain critical number of such changes the >>>> properties of the entire network system can rapidly change. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it is possible that this is the case. What this would mean is that >>> that the observable behaviour of the system would stay unchanged as it is >>> replaced from 0 to 100% and so would the consciousness for part of the way, >>> but at a certain point, when a particular neurone is replaced, >>> consciousness will suddenly flip on or off or change radically. >>> >>> >>> I think you are overstating that and creating a strawman. Consciousness >>> under the influence of drugs for example can change radically, but not >>> "suddenly flip" with one more molecule of alcohol. >>> >> >> If part of your consciousness changes as your brain is gradually replaced >> then you would notice but be aware noble to communicate it, which is what >> it scproblematic. One way out of this would be if your consciousness stayed >> the same up to a certain point then suddenly flipped. If you suddenly >> became a zombie you would not notice and not report that anything had >> changed, so no inconsistency. However, it’s a long stretch to say that >> consciousness will flip on changing a single molecule in order to save the >> idea that it is substrate specific. >> >> >> But LC wasn't arguing it was substrate specific. He was arguing that its >> scale specific. >> > >> Brent >> > > That was one argument. Also I am not arguing about the dosage of a drug, > but of some rewiring, removal or replacement of sub-networks. > > As for substrate ponder the following question. If you had a stroke and > were given the option of either a silicon chip system to replace neural > functioning or neurons derived from your own stem cells, which would you > choose? The obvious choice would be neurons, for they would most adapt to > fill in needed function and interact with the rest of the brain. > > > I think it very likely that a silicon neuron could work. But it would > work like a peg leg works. You could still get around, but it wouldn't > grow or self heal or tell you when it was hot or cold. Your brain can > actually grow new neurons and remove dead and non-functioning ones, and > respond to hormones. So I would expect that gradually replacing your > neurons with artificial neurons would gradually change how you function. > But maybe not in a way you could notice. For example, you don't > consciously notice hormone levels, so if you stopped responding to them you > wouldn't notice, and nobody else would either unless they were monitoring > hormone levels in your blood. > I agree with this, some as yet unavailable nanotechnology would be needed to make fully functional artificial neurones. Alternatively, if there is no need to interface with neural tissue the whole brain, including the changes in neurones over time and their response to the microenvironment, could be simulated on a general purpose computer. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
