From: Luke (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 30 2009 - 07:27:07 MST
(1) a class of machines called "all machines", of which any human is a
(2) a class of machines called "machines buildable by conscious human
It may be that humans are not part of the second class. "We" can build
other humans, but I put "we" in quotes because it's not really us, but our
bodies which do the trick.
"Noncomputable" is probably a better term than "nonlogical", and I posit
that is what was meant.
But if we want to talk about a "ghost in the machine", we could posit that
higher-dimensional signals which are too small to be measured except by a
chaotic process could be significant determinants of the outputs of human
Final point: people here talk about reproducing the brain, and I think the
term "gross viscera" was used to refer to the rest of the body. I don't
know about y'all, but my intelligence and behavior is very largely driven by
the activities of those "gross viscera". Adrenaline, myofascial tensegrity
patterns, ganglia large and small, HGH, you name it: if you want to
reproduce human behavior, you have to represent the whole body.
In other words. If you take Jim's brain out of his body and hook it into a
robot body, that robot is NOT going to act like Jim unless you get the robot
body to feed it the same patterns of hormones. How would you do that,
unless the robot body was a recreation of his human body? Then in what
sense is it a robot?
That being said, there's about 3.4 bbp in the genome of a human cell.
Assuming that mutations don't matter (which they do - cancer anyone?), that
gives about a 6.4 gig file to represent a human starting point. That's the
code. Every interaction with the "environment", i.e. right down to the
water molecules jiggling in the nucleus of every cell and your mother's mood
at the moment your first neurons form, represent the data that the code acts
Just some thoughts. Tie these together as necessary.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Pavitra <email@example.com>wrote:
> Matt Paul wrote:
> > Yes. I think a human being counts as a machine, among other things.
> > Look at my comment about dimensions. I think this clarifies best.
> But you said...
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 09:19 AM, "Matt Paul" wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 2009, at 1:22 AM, "John K Clark" wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> >>> Is the intelligence that has advanced humanity actually able to be
> >>> recreated in a machine?
> >> Yes obviously
> > -- you say obviously, but it seems much less than obvious to me.
> > There
> > are aspects of our "intelligence" that I think may not truly be
> > physical, not a neurochemical process, not a logic system that can be
> > mathematically represented.
> If humans are machines, then isn't the existence of humans a trivial
> proof that human intelligence can be recreated in a machine?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 21 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT