From: fudley (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 18 2006 - 09:44:33 MST
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 "Phillip Huggan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Where has computation ever produced intelligent behaviour?
John K Clark and Phillip Huggan.
> Surely that process can't be described as computation.
It can be described as computation, and don’t call me Shirley.
> A computer is one class of physical systems.
> Our brains are another.
So if a vacuum tube computer calculated the first 10 digits of pi the
answer would be fundamentally different than if a transistor computer
calculated the first 10 digits of pi, and if I calculated the output
would be different yet again; the three may look the same, they may all
contain the same digits but “really” they are different, different in
ways that can not be specified.
Pretty dumb don’t you think?
> Surely you won't postulate that a synapse can occur
> using lego brains and lego neurotransmitters right?
Wrong, I do postulate it, and I asked you not to call me Shirley.
> That is a question I've asked over and over again on this
> list and yet to receive a yes or no answer
Well now you have.
> I'm saying the class of electro-chemical reactions
> needed for consciousness is too exclusive to admit
> present computer architectures.
You are just saying “only meat can make a computer” and throwing in
phrases like “electro-chemical reactions”. You are not giving one bit
more substance than that, you do not give one reason for believing it is
true, you are just repeating it in a louder voice.
> My theory is proveable. Surely particle accelerators
> and experimental studies of animal architectures have
> already revealed the mysterious "x-particle" I've postulated.
What on Earth are you talking about?
> The human brain is the most complex object in the universe.
Yes, and the human brain will remain the most complex object in the
universe for another 15 years or so.
> This is too big a field to just google my way to an explanation.
But why do you use Google to help you come up with ideas? Google uses
electrons and your brain uses ions and you say they are much better.
> you KNOW legos can't make consciousness
I know nothing of the sort! If grey goo and silicon chips can make
consciousness if they are organized properly then so can legos, although
engineering considerations might make silicon a bit more economical.
> I suggest you trace what critical computer
> hardware component facilitates thought.
No hardware component is uniquely required for thought, the key to
intelligent behavior is how the components (and they can be almost
anything) are organized.
> Computer's can't make a nuclear reactor, right?
Currently the biggest supercomputer on Earth is used almost exclusively
to design H bombs.
> I'm saying consciousness is physical too.
No shit Sherlock. Can you name any idea that isn’t physical? I can’t.
> You can simulate meatty brains, but you
> will only get simulated cement slabs and simulated thoughts.
And when I add numbers with my calculator it is only doing simulating
arithmetic not real arithmetic. If I want the real answer I must do it
myself. Pretty silly don’t you think.
John K Clark
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT