RE: We are no different than computers
May 17, 2015 at 6:31 am
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2015 at 7:12 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Precisely, it overcomes a potential hurdle. It's just a question that will end up arising. Additionally, from what we can tell, there are no "task specific" gates in our brains - at least not as we conceive of them in, say, a digital computer. If I removed all of the XNORs in your PC's cpu that's it, you're done....but human beings are remarkably resilient when it comes to "losing gates" (check the "man with no brain" and neural plasticity in general). If the gates were task specific, exclusive, explicit even..we would not expect this to be so. There must be a great deal of universality and redundancy to exhibit the effects we see if brain/mind is comp...biology, of course, predicts that there would be, and observation backs up that prediction when we glance at the surface, so to speak. While it isn't impossible for evolution to have built a great many computers to task, it's a tad less difficulty to understand how nature could have "happened upon them". Sure, the brains development has direction - but comp has a minimum bar, and plenty of life arranges circuits or gates (and a great many other systems) without, so far as we can tell, meeting that bar...so, pointing to the direction in the development of our brains does not actually help to explain -how- that development (or direction) arose, in the context of comp mind. It just pushes the question back from "how does the brain build a system of explicit gates for itself" to "how does evolution build a system of explicit gates for the brain".
Evolved for other purposes or no purpose at all. In a distributed, emulated system, it's only important that the components be present (by any means), not that they have any specific, associated task -or that they ever did-. Complexity, in this case, wouldn't confer consciousness by default. Many things are very complex and yet not, so far as we can tell, conscious. In this case, specifically, it would be a staggering redundancy of structures capable of acting as universal gates...which are engaged in computation......a very simple machine, in principle.
Obviously, I prefer to mix NN and CTM when one or the other offers a better explanation, toes the line /w observations more adequately, or presents fewer unanswered questions in it's attempt to explain. Some combo of NN and CTM -can- account for mind, imo, even though.....in the end, mind may be "else". CTM has a better "how". NN has a better "what". Modern Synth has the best "why". As such, I'm not fond of explanations of mind -by any means- that postulate events or interactions which would seem to rub against an infinitely better demonstrated theory or fact. CTM attempts to explain the underlying principle, but has to climb Mt. Improbable in order to "build the machine". NN has an easy time building the machine, but must - necessarily- lean on the principles of computing in order to explain how the machine, once built, works. And, as above, either way (or any other alternative) must have an explanation as to it's origins - which is an area in which we have knowledge, fact, rather than propositions.
-Consciousness, btw, offers no certain benefits, nothing does. Off the top of my head I can tell you one horrible, massive con to having a "thinking organ". You can be fooled. All benefits it confers may ultimately be eroded by this simple fact. Additionally, plenty of our relatives do fine without the big brains - and there's nothing that a human brain can actually -do- in and of itself, that would yield certain benefit. It's always a system, an interaction, brain as force multiplier, rather than as -the- force itself. The things we call "benefits of the thinking apparatus" may be mis-attribution, and, of course, under CTM a great many things may be "thinking" without seeing any of those benefits we ascribe when we do it. Additionally, wiping away any notion as to how or what mind is, that other things, demonstrably not the same as our brains or minds, are capable of achieving the same effect puts to bed the notion that a big brain, once gotten, would be kept for "reasons", or that a big brain is, relative to other strategies also present -even within us- a net benefit.
"Monkey /w big brain thinks big brain is super important" - well, we would, wouldn't we...but is it?
(again, google, "the man with no brain")
Evolved for other purposes or no purpose at all. In a distributed, emulated system, it's only important that the components be present (by any means), not that they have any specific, associated task -or that they ever did-. Complexity, in this case, wouldn't confer consciousness by default. Many things are very complex and yet not, so far as we can tell, conscious. In this case, specifically, it would be a staggering redundancy of structures capable of acting as universal gates...which are engaged in computation......a very simple machine, in principle.
Obviously, I prefer to mix NN and CTM when one or the other offers a better explanation, toes the line /w observations more adequately, or presents fewer unanswered questions in it's attempt to explain. Some combo of NN and CTM -can- account for mind, imo, even though.....in the end, mind may be "else". CTM has a better "how". NN has a better "what". Modern Synth has the best "why". As such, I'm not fond of explanations of mind -by any means- that postulate events or interactions which would seem to rub against an infinitely better demonstrated theory or fact. CTM attempts to explain the underlying principle, but has to climb Mt. Improbable in order to "build the machine". NN has an easy time building the machine, but must - necessarily- lean on the principles of computing in order to explain how the machine, once built, works. And, as above, either way (or any other alternative) must have an explanation as to it's origins - which is an area in which we have knowledge, fact, rather than propositions.
-Consciousness, btw, offers no certain benefits, nothing does. Off the top of my head I can tell you one horrible, massive con to having a "thinking organ". You can be fooled. All benefits it confers may ultimately be eroded by this simple fact. Additionally, plenty of our relatives do fine without the big brains - and there's nothing that a human brain can actually -do- in and of itself, that would yield certain benefit. It's always a system, an interaction, brain as force multiplier, rather than as -the- force itself. The things we call "benefits of the thinking apparatus" may be mis-attribution, and, of course, under CTM a great many things may be "thinking" without seeing any of those benefits we ascribe when we do it. Additionally, wiping away any notion as to how or what mind is, that other things, demonstrably not the same as our brains or minds, are capable of achieving the same effect puts to bed the notion that a big brain, once gotten, would be kept for "reasons", or that a big brain is, relative to other strategies also present -even within us- a net benefit.
"Monkey /w big brain thinks big brain is super important" - well, we would, wouldn't we...but is it?
(again, google, "the man with no brain")
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
