IUBio

Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998

Keeva Speyer grq at writeme.com
Tue Apr 28 20:12:04 EST 1998


Hermital wrote:
> 
> On Mon 4/27/98 (Not likely!  As I understand the International Dateline
> you are a day ahead of me, not a day behind.) 23:31 +1000 Keeva Speyer
> wrote:
> > At 19:01 28/04/98 -0500, you [Hermital] wrote:
> > >On Mon 4/27/98 21:22 +1000 Keeva Speyer wrote:
> > >> Wim Van Dijck wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 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.
> > >
> > >Yes, he is.
> >
> > The assumption is highly questionable (and in my mind 99% probably
> > untrue).
> >
> Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

We aren't all here just to be entitled to our opinion. What's your
opinion?

> > >
> > >> Your also assuming our minds aren't actually one big
> > >> algorith.
> > >
> > >Yes, he is.
> >
> > The assumption is highly questionable (and in my mind 90% probably
> > untrue).
> >
> Again, you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

So, what do you think?

> > >
> > >> Also neural nets as far as I know are usually software based
> > >> on normal hardware, ie. work on an algorithm.
> > >
> > >OK.
> >
> > This would tend to sugest that the general architecture of the mind can
> > be emulated.
> >
> Perhaps it does suggest emulation, in principle, but IMO there are
> factors that preclude emulation.  One of those is the fact that
> humankind is not the measure of all things.  Another factor is that
> Descartes' Mind/Body problem has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.
> See further http://www.livingston.net/hermital/etiology.htm.

What do you mean by "humankind is not the measure of all things". I
don't see any relivance. Sure we're not the centre of the universe but
what has that got to do with the fact that we can emulated the general
structure of our mind, therefore making the emulation of the function of
our mind more likely.
 
> Furthermore, consciousness, per se, has yet to be satisfactorily
> defined.
> See further http://www.livingston.net/hermital/csenergy.htm.

We're talking about intellegence. We don't need to define it to
recognise it anyway, I know your intellegent. The turing test will do as
a preliminary test of intellegence.

> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >The question a series of steps raises is:  From what to what?
> >
> > From the nerve impluse that lead from the input to the finial state
> > attained as a result of the input (or the contribution to the continual
> > process if you don't like a final state).
> >
> > Therefore our mind may be one big algorithm.
> >
> > >> Therefore our mind may be one big algorithm.
> > >>
> > >Doubtful.  Very doubtful.  See further (URLs snipped by Keeva  reinstated below:)
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/influenc.htm

I'm sorry, I found your site, illogical, vauge and very highly
speculative and even more metephorical. Can you briefly state your main
arguments against an agorithmic ;) mind. My mind isn't made up on the
matter but I'm totally in the dark as to your arguements.


> Within the sub-light-speed spacetime continuum of our synergistic
> material universe, higher order information produced in the
> transcendent continuum of conscious energies devolves and directs
> both the organization and the evolution of lower order aggregations
> of energy called matter.

Why do you think this?
Why do you suspect a "transcendent continuum"? And what do you mean by
it?
What is "higher order information"?
What is "conscious energies"? I don't see the link between the two.
What about non-matter energy?

Please don't refer me to your site. I'm unable to find either a logical
argument or plausible evidence there.


Cheers,
Keeva.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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