-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sat 7/9/2011 10:14 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 09 Jul 2011, at 07:07, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Down the bottom if you
On 09 Jul 2011, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Sure, it would be great to have improved synthetic bodies, but I have
no reason to believe that depth and quality of consciousness is
independent from substance. If I have an artificial heart, that
artificiality may not affect me as much as
You might find out that molecules in brain are unconscious too.
The fact that consciousness changes predictably when different
molecules are introduced to the brain, and that we are able to produce
different molecules by changing the content of our consciousness
subjectively suggests to me that
On 10 Jul 2011, at 09:37, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Hi Bruno et.al.
Once again we have come to grief on the old conflation.
(A) You speak of a universe _AS_ computation (described _as if_ on
some
abstract mega-turing machine)
You confuse perhaps with Schmidhuber's position, or some
On 10 Jul 2011, at 15:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You might find out that molecules in brain are unconscious too.
The fact that consciousness changes predictably when different
molecules are introduced to the brain, and that we are able to produce
different molecules by changing the content of
On 7/9/2011 9:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why? Biological tissue is made out of protons, neutrons, and electrons
just like computer chips. Why should anything other than their
input/output function matter?
A cadaver is made out of the same thing too. You could pump food into
it and
On 7/9/2011 9:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Sure, it would be great to have improved synthetic bodies, but I have
no reason to believe that depth and quality of consciousness is
independent from substance. If I have an artificial heart, that
artificiality may not affect me as much as having an
On 7/9/2011 5:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
A living cell is more than the sum of it's parts. A dead cell is made
of the same materials with the same organization as a living cell,
That's not true. It's dead precisely because it doesn't have the same
organization.
Brent
--
You received
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, 11 July 2011 1:16 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: COMP refutation GAME OVER
On 10 Jul 2011, at 09:37, Colin Geoffrey Hales
I don't think we can say what is or what wouldn't be possible with a machine
of these
complexity; all machines we have built to date are primitive and simplistic
by comparison. The machines we deal with day to day don't usually do novel
things, exhibit creativity, surprise us, etc. but I think a
All right, but then honesty should force you to do the same with
computer ships. Unless you presuppose the molecules not being Turing
emulable.
Computer chips don't behave in the same way though. Your computer
can't become an ammoniaholic or commit suicide.The problem with
emulating molecules is
Exactly. So it doesn't depend on the components. Then what does it
depend on? It depends on their arrangement and interaction.
Yes, but my point is that arrangement and interaction alone don't
matter if the components don't have the capability to support the
desired higher level phenomena.
If
12 matches
Mail list logo
