Hi,
You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are
feeling it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of
the cranial central nervous system are doing things.
Yes, they are passing signals back and forth, performing additions,
multiplications, and comparisons to thresholds to decide what to do.
Everything the neuron is known to do is something a computer can do. It
is like comparing a diesel engine to a gasoline engine, they are made
slightly differently yet both perform combustion.
Think again. What there is, is atoms dancing about. To us, there is
regularity. That regularity has some correspondence with a mathematical
formalism. The particular formalism is dependent on the spatiotemporal
scale of the description. A formalism describes . There is no addition,
multiplication or anything else of the sort. The dynamics of computation
(on a standard computing platform) of the formalism, and the dynamics
of the natural world of the description cannot and never should be
claimed identities. They can, and do, depart each other.
This includes (1) action potentials mutually resonating with (2)
a gigantic EM field system in extremely complex ways. Exactly how and
why this specific arrangement of atoms and behaviour delivers it is
irrelevant. It is enough to know that it does. More than that it is the
ONLY example of natural cognition we have.
I fail to see what the EM field has to do with it, but even assuming it
did, could we not use what is known regarding EM fields and the laws of
physics to build a model which predicted what the EM field based mind
would do? If they behaved the same how can one be called intelligent
while the other is not?
There is electrodynamics of action potentials. There is electrodynamics
of a large field system as a result. The two are not related 1:1. Thats
ALL THERE IS to a 'natural general intelligence'. If you want to build
an 'artificial general intelligence, then like fire, you use action
potentials to create a field system like the brain. You do not construct
a model of the brain and pretend the model is a brain.
The whole point of this argument is that unlike any other time
in the history of science, we are expecting the particular physics (that
we know delivers cognition) can be totally replaced (by the physics of
a computer or even worse, a non-existent Turing machine) , yet still
result in cognition.
If you believe that computed physics equations is
indistinguishable from physics, to the point that a computed model of
the physics of cognition is cognition, then why don't you expect a
computed model of combustion physics to burst into flames and replace
your cooker?
You are conflating the inside and outside views of the computer and
simulation. If I built an accurate simulation of the food, the cooker,
and myself in a computer, then the computer is a fine tool for preparing
and cooking food for me to consume. Similarly, if you imagine our
universe is already running inside a computer, don't expect a fire you
start in this universe to cause any damage to the computing hardware
running the simulation of that universe.
You are conflating simulation and replication. The simulation (of Thing
and environmental container of Thing) is useful for instructing us about
the dynamics of the model. Sometimes this happens to correspond well
enough with observation of the natural world for us to learn something
novel about the natural world.
Why can't you go to work in a computed model of a car that
spontaneously springs into your life? Why don't you expect to be able to
light your room with a computed model of the physics of a lightbulb? Why
can't you compute Maxwell's equations and create a power station?
The point is I can if I am in the simulation as well. A simulated mind
is part of the simulation, and correspondingly would be able to think,
just as a fire within a simulation could burn you (if you're in the
simulation).
Once again I point out that I am not talking about simulation
(pretending). I am talking about replication. Making real cognition from
the natural components of the only example of it, which is not and never
was any sort of computer running a program.
Cheers
Colin
Here's the mantra (a) "COGNITION IS COMPUTATION"
Well if so, then why isn't ILLUMINATION BY LIGHT a result of
COMPUTATION OF LIGHTBULB PHYSICS? That would be the prediction if (a)
were true. A computation of hurricane physics is not a hurricane. But
then nobody wants to create a hurricane, nor do we expect the
computation to produce one!..... But we do want to literally create
cognition...and we do then, for no valid reason, assume that computation
delivers it. We are being inconsistent and a fundamental level. We build
Pinocchio the computational puppet and kid ourselves it's somehow a boy.
Would you say when a computer is performing a calculation, it is really
adding or only simulating the adding? Next, consider that addition is
the heart of what neurons do to determine their behavior.
A computer is not a set of resonating action
potential/electromagnetic fields of the kind found in a brain, not
matter what the program is. I know this because I am an electrical
engineer+neurobiophysicist. You cannot argue that the result is
cognition without making a dramatic presupposition/conflation about
computing of the kind that creates this mess in the first place.
Do you think it is impossible to understand or predict the EM fields
created in the brain?
This is the logical result of that belief. We have the natural
world to work with (atoms and space). That's our computer. Either the
(Turing) computational equivalence applies everywhere or it doesn't
apply at all. Therefore it doesn't apply at all.
We can't have it both ways.
The reason results of cognition are accessible through simulation is
that the output is information. Thus we can introspect the program and
determine what the mind is doing, wants to do, or has decided. If we
introspect a simulation of fire, we can see the result of the reaction,
but we cannot extract the energy released as part of that simulation for
any useful purpose in this (higher level universe), although if you are
in the simulation you could.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
