RE: Mathematical Neuroscience and The Spirit
February 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm
(This post was last modified: February 28, 2013 at 7:12 pm by oanghelidi.)
(February 28, 2013 at 6:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I read the article. I did not see anything in it supporting the idea that creating a sentient computer was impossible. I think they just suggested that it is a long way off. Perhaps you could present a layman's summary for your findings.
The article has nothing to do with the theory. I listed it in here to add some weight to the discussion. I thought I just did. If a brain system that has the neural code implemented: detailed neuronal models, not the simple point models and glial cells and multiple regions and circuits (not simple networks with multiple layers)...) is not "alive" then the opposite is true.
Quote:Plus there are some physical theories of mind that do not require exact modeling of a biological brain. Your mathematical formula would have to exclude those possibilities as well.
Quantum theories? That hypothesis that Richard Dawkins raised? Come on... Informational representation in brain doesn't require quantum mechanics theory so there is no need for that. As there is no need to simulate subatomic particles or whatever other theories. It is like saying: implementing blood circulation in the brain would help the information processing models. No it doesn't.
If the theory that captures information processing in the brain (i.e. "neural code") doesn't employ consciousness then ...
(February 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: After reading that article, I fail to see how you made a functioning artificial brain.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that the article has nothing to do with the theory that I just said.
Quote:How did you make the leap from that to those idiocies that you wrote here?
Idiocies... Usually the religious people get upset... I highly doubt that you would understand the math...
Quote:All that article says is that the artificial brain that IBM made (and didn't work) was completely wrong, based on wrong premisses and could never ever work.
That is correct. Most of the brain simulations fail because they do not capture the relevant information. Markram micro-cortical simulation, Modha-IBM simulation and countless others. But my point is that if you do implement the right theoretical models, consciousness is still missing.
And that is something that I can not get past.
