Seems too simplistic. Also, wouldn't our daily consciousness then
be subject to strong EM fields, like going under an MRI scanner?
Simiarly, there are therapies that try to stimulate the brain using EM
fields but it has no immediate effect on consciousness:
http://www.med.yale.edu/psych/clinics/rT
This is actually a very old idea. The brain does generate an EM
field, but it's quite weak since its contents are very well insulated.
Fortunately there is a test which ought to be able to determine
whether consciousness arises from the interaction of EM fields in the
brain. Placing a strong sou
Hi,
Daniel Allen wrote:
> Seems too simplistic. Also, wouldn't our daily consciousness then
> be subject to strong EM fields, like going under an MRI scanner?
Your question is addressed in the FAQ at the bottom of the link I sent:
:START QUOTE:
Why don't external fields (from power lines, mob
On 23/01/2008, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find the theory very compelling, as I always found the functionalistic
> AI approach a bit lacking whereas I am a full endorser of a
> materialistic/monist approach (and I believe strong AI is feasible). EM
> fields arising through the o
It is far from clear that electromagnetic waves like those in brain waves
are necessary for consciousness in machines, but they may well play a vital
role in human consciousness.
This is something that I have considered since the early '70s when I
envisioned consciousness as being something like w
--- Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I though this might be interesting:
> http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm
This is another example of starting with the false assumption that
consciousness (or qualia) exists, and then deriving bizarre theories to
explain it, like Penr
On Jan 23, 2008 11:55 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is another example of starting with the false assumption that
> consciousness (or qualia) exists, and then deriving bizarre theories to
> explain it, like Penrose's quantum gravity. A better explanation would be
> that evol
nothing corresponding to
consciousness exits.
If there is any such evidence that merrits repeating, please tell me.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:56 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] CEMI Field
--
Günther Greindl wrote:
Hi guys,
I though this might be interesting:
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm
His thesis is that consciousness is not generated by the neurons firing
and computing, but rather the electromagnetic (EM) field generated by
the neurons is consciousness - being conscious
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2008 11:55 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is another example of starting with the false assumption that
> > consciousness (or qualia) exists, and then deriving bizarre theories to
> > explain it, like Penrose's q
On Jan 24, 2008 4:29 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just about all humans claim to have an awareness of sensations, thoughts, and
> feelings, and control over decisions they make, what we commonly call
> "consciousness". A P-zombie would make such claims too (because by definition
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 4:29 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Just about all humans claim to have an awareness of sensations, thoughts,
> and
> > feelings, and control over decisions they make, what we commonly call
> > "consciousness".
On Jan 24, 2008 11:28 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Episodic memory is an aspect of belief in consciousness. Consciousness does
> not exist.
>
OK, thank you, now I understand what you are talking about. You use
'belief in consciousness' to designate behavioral patterns that are
Hi Richard,
It says, in effect "Hey, the explanation of consciousness is that it is
caused by X" where X is something that explains absolutely nothing about
whatever consciousness is supposed to be. Moreover, the person
espousing the theory, you can bet, will not be able to state exactly
wha
Gunther: we can fairly definitly
locate consciousness _in_ the brain (or the whole brain) - but not
_outside_ the brain.
Except that the brain isn't sentient, itself. And evolutionarily, the brain
is a somewhat belated development/ centralisation of a distributed nervous
system, no? The brain
Günther Greindl wrote:
Hi Richard,
It says, in effect "Hey, the explanation of consciousness is that it
is caused by X" where X is something that explains absolutely nothing
about whatever consciousness is supposed to be. Moreover, the person
espousing the theory, you can bet, will not be ab
25 Janvier 2008, 16h38mn 36s
Objet : Re: [agi] CEMI Field
Günther Greindl wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> It says, in effect "Hey, the explanation of consciousness is that it
>> is caused by X" where X is something that explains absolutely nothing
>> about whatever co
17 matches
Mail list logo
