From: Richard Loosemore (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 15 2006 - 20:54:37 MST
The core of what you are saying is the old chestnut about whether you
can have a human-level-intelligence thinking being *without* it being
You talk as if it were possible to have mind with or without consciousness.
You are also pointing to the "it must have the right substrate to be
conscious" position. Again, one of the standard moves in this oft
rehearsed philosophical chess game.
At the very least, it is not even slightly obvious why substrate type
should have any bearing on consciousness. And many people disagree that
it does: I do, and I think Mikko does for the same reason (he points
out that hormone systems are just another message passing system).
I think that consciousness is not going to be separable in the way you
believe. Many others take this position.
Phillip Huggan wrote:
> Well you need to get her drunk first. A massage. Good music helps too...
> Seriously, I don't think it's wise to make conscious beings. There are
> ethical problems such as: if we piss it off it might kill all of us.
> I'm hoping AI will be done without minds.
> I've learned through nanotech studies that deposition reaction
> procedures are very substrate specific. I would think this will carry
> over to minds too. If we want to clone Jeff Medina, I don't think any
> amount of silicon-based brain structures are going to do, no matter what
> topography we use. We would need to use carbon-based chemistries.
> There are EM fields that can be detected originating within
> human brains. Transposing carbon with silicon would change/eliminate
> the fields. The fields themselves aren't what is conscious, but for now
> things like an EEG are the best markers we have.
> As far as I know you can't reproduce EM fields on conventional computer
> simulations. They're just there in the physical world. As soon as you
> produce a brain architecture that shows electrical activities and emits
> EM fields similiar to what our brains emit, then it is time to be scared
> for the human race. I don't know what kind of architectures this
> encompasses, but I know it rules out 2006 computer hardwares. There was
> a kid who made a Scanning Tunneling Microscope out of lego, but the
> fineprint reveals he used other non-lego components.
> */Jeff Medina <firstname.lastname@example.org>/* wrote:
> On 1/15/06, Phillip Huggan wrote:
> > Even if you can reproduce all the behaviours of the
> > molecule, you still will probably need the actual atoms to play
> > Frankenstein.
> This is a widely contested/unaccepted claim among computer scientists
> and physical scientists, Phillip. Hence, I'd greatly appreciate if you
> would include arguments for your claims about what probably will or
> will not be needed in the future to create a conscious being.
> Yahoo! Photos
> Got holiday prints? See all the ways
> to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT