IUBio

Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998

Keeva Speyer grq at writeme.com
Mon Apr 27 06:22:01 EST 1998


Wim Van Dijck wrote:
> 
> On 23 Apr 1998 17:00:42 -0500, rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
> wrote:
> 
> >modlin at concentric.net writes:
> >>In <353EFFF7.857AE508 at linkserve.com.ng>, Lyle Bateman <lbateman at linkserve.com.ng> writes:
> >
> >>>Its a matter of a lot more than just programming, I'd have to say.  Hardware
> >>>design is critical here.  With the type of architecture currently popular in
> >>>the computer industry, conciousness will never happen.
> >
> >I have to agree with Lyle here.
> Me too
Me too, software has shown to be very good at emulating all sorts of
types of hardware afterall.
> 
> >>In the sense that you seem to mean it, your statement that hardware
> >>design is critical is wrong.
> >
> >And thus I disagree with Bill.
> Indeed
> 
> >>Hardware design is important in a lot of practical ways.  A design must
> >>provide devices and channels for information to come into the system and
> >>out of it... sensors and effectors, in biological or robotic terms.
> >>Hardware design also determines how fast computations can proceed, and
> >>how much information can be stored and manipulated... all very important
> >>to the practicality of solving any particular computational problem.
> >
> >>But hardware design has absolutely nothing to do with the kinds of
> >>things that can be computed,
> >
> >To the extent that that is true, computation is irrelevant to
> >cognition.
Except ofcourse that you seem to need a hell of a lot if it to make
cogniton possible.

> 
> I once heard a quite strond argument during some introductory AI
> classes: computer hardware (neural nets not included) work in
> algoritms. Conscious minds, such as ours, use procedures (or whatever
> you want to call it) that are not algoritm based. Computers CAN only
> use algoritms (at least nowadays) so based on this principle, a
> computer will never gain consciousness, no matter how big or fast it
> is.
Your assuming that consiousness can't be emulated/created via an
algorithm. Your also assuming our minds aren't actually one big
algorith. Also neural nets as far as I know are usually software based
on normal hardware, ie. work on an algorithm. Anyway isn't an algorithm
just a system that takes input, follows a series of steps and usually
creates output. It is arguable that the neural links in our minds are
the steps. Therefore our mind may be one big algorithm.

> 
> Greetings.
> Wim.
> 
> In this  world, all you need is honesty and sincerity.
> If you can fake those two, you're set for life.
>                     ---- Groucho Marx



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net