From: Krekoski Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 04:26:09 MDT
> 2008/4/25 Lee Corbin <email@example.com>:
> > The speed of light limits how big an "individual" can be.
> > If it conducts thoughts at the speed of light, then is the
> > .1 second or so delay across the world still okay for
> > a single mind?
It depends-- lets not confuse intuitions about consciousness with
computability. There seems to be no real reason aside from energy
requirements and heat why a machine can't be any arbitrary size and still
perform computations that take advantage of increase in complexity. You
would possibly eventually get diminishing returns, but consider that the
speed of neurons in our brain is significantly slower than light, i.e. there
is delay, and it doesnt seem to be an issue.
> How can I think when half my brain
> > needs a few seconds to get up to speed with what the
> > other half has already "thought"?
As above, it already does doesnt it? neural cascades are not instantaneous.
Conscious experience for the most part at least seems subjectively to be.
Separating the system and the signal itself is almost akin to separating
mind and body, and, for reasons mentioned before, may be 'the wrong kind of
question' to ask.
Again though, if we are talking about computability rather than intuitions
about consciousness, then theres no reason why we can't hae a large machine
that just sub-divides a task to different areas. its not instantaneous, but
then neither is an adiabatic system, but it can still (hypothetically) get
> So, to have solar-system
> > sized intelligences is out of the question.
I dont see why.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT