Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998

Hermital hermital at livingston.net
Tue Apr 28 21:07:56 EST 1998


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.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >> 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. 

Furthermore, consciousness, per se, has yet to be satisfactorily
defined.
See further http://www.livingston.net/hermital/csenergy.htm.
> >
> >> 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.
>
The other option is:  It may not be.  Mind may be entirely separate from
the human form.  See further 
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> >
> >> 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 not sure it is either but it seems quite possible. What briefly are
> your problems with it?
>
Please see the URLs provided above, plus
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/paradigm.htm and the web pages listed
in my sig. file below.
--
Alan
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.
Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm:
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list