Re: Revisiting Kurzweil

"Don Geddis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I wrote:
> > > Subjective experience is about higher-level organization. If you
replace
> > > organic neurons with ones that "mimic the measurable physical
behaviors",
> > > subjective experience will continue unchanged.
>
> "Ed van der Meulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think so, it's only an idea, please prove what you are saying.
>
> I have exactly as much proof for my idea, as you do for yours. That is,
> none at all.

Are you sure. How do you know that?  Maybe I have arguments.

Have you read this url, it's English and very easy to read. But it's also
long and please take your time for it. Rome was neither built in one day.
Did you ever visit Rome, beautiful city. I live in another country.
The link:

http://nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-layr

And with that reality view we could se over the edges, wow!

> You're the one who was claiming that, if you replace a brain's organic
> neurons with artificial ones, that subjective experience would disappear.
> You claimed this with no evidence, and in fact without even a good
> understanding of what subjective experience really _is_.
Oh but mankind has also logic. may I use a metphor, all that blood sticks
so.
You change the quarks in the quantum world, you maybe no more of that than I
when is your home. But do you have an idea waht can change then? Well?
Yes, you are right, certainly, no idea. But don't you think when we ask such
people
who live there what they will say. And quarks built up to even you Don.
This is only one argument. When you have read that long article about the
common
reality then i can tell you more arguiments as well, for then we can peep
over the edge.
>
> All I did was provide an alternate theory, also consistent with known
facts,
> which implies that nothing at all would change. I don't have any proof for
> this theory. I'm just demonstrating that you don't have any proof for
yours
> either.
Well. I told you already something.
>
> > Why didn't you react at my posting, am I a nut?
>
> Yes, you got it. I didn't react to the rest of what you said because you
> are a nut.
Well Don is that now necessary for that part contains the same argument I
told you before.
You don't like my argumnets, But that's not a right discussion, How do you
feel that yourself.

>
> > The lower LODs (levels o detail) are the fundament of all that is
> > happening. Change a property of a quark and we have another world. We
even
> > don't know what it will become. Please argue against this.
>
> OK, sure. Are you familiar with computer networking? OSI's network model
> defines seven different layers for a single computer network:
A little bit of TCP/IP but I knopw it's very difficult subject so it's
better I say no.
You can com,bine layers. Cwrtain things at lower layer dont reach higher

> http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/document/CIE/Topics/15.htm
> _Any_ of the seven layers could be replaced by a functionally equivalent
> mechanism that uses a completely different implementation, and the other
> six layers would continue unchanged. For example, some students recently
> implemented a fully-compliant TCP/IP network using the physical medium of
> ... bongo drums!:
> http://eagle.auc.ca/~dreid/index.html
This we simulate with the formule T = T ' you replacer a technical by peple
constructed
part by another comparable part. and the euivalensd in the brain is B = B'
is that right?

>
> The same is true in physics. The whole science of chemistry relies on very
> little of the complexity of physics.

But I even can replace O atoms by Cu atoms, Do you know which color you get.
And then you want the enormous jump from a living tissue to a technical
solution?

Maybe protheses at that scale.

Do you know there are more bacteria in your body then cells, and suppose
yiu replaced all our body parts. What kind of work would you gice to all
those
bacteria. Do you want to hear more

> You didn't need all those subatomic
> particles (except the big four: protons, neutrons, electrons, and
photons).
> The hundreds of odd particles don't affect the ordinary world much.
> Relativity (special and general) isn't too important: the world would have
been
> much the same even if the speed of light hadn't been constant for every
> observer.

I remember some said how beautiful fits c the seepd of light in our life. Do
you
remember that as well. In any case proof your statement please foir those
things
you could test.

> It's a very, very rare observation that can tell the difference
> between Newtonian physics and relativistic physics.

Rare? I thought people learned that

Fine, but you want to exchange everything by everything and that's too much.

Can we have a drink now?

>
> Similarly, biology relies on only a tiny subset of chemistry. Much of
> chemistry could have been different, and biology could still have been
pretty
> much the same.

There are parallel developments, but they aren't made from computer
material.
>
> You're right that if you left everything in physics the same, but only
> changed some fundamental constants about a quark, that the whole world
would
> be radically different. This just shows that you don't understand what
> "functionally equivalent" means.

Maybe you are right, I know the words, But it's true I know of so many thing
nothing.
How is that with you?

> You can't replace a layer with some random
> structure and expect the rest of the organization to still work. You must
> replace it with a new structure that implements the same (required)
> functionality!

The *must* is okay, but the investments to make it, to show it to the world,
can you
estimate them.

> But once you do that, the higher layers couldn't care less which
particular
> implementation you happened to use.

Yes, provided all stays to function in the same way, Then you are right. But
my
problem is how can I make that same function true. One tiny virus  and you
are already sick.

>
> Getting back to the original point: we understand so little about what
> "subjective experience" really is, that nobody has any way of judging
whether
> it depends on micro physics properties or not. However, we do have a lot
of
> experience building complex systems. The way to do it reliably is almost
> always to create independent abstraction layers. This is obvious in
artificial
> devices, and it is also clear in the most complex parts of the natural
world
> that we do understand (e.g. DNA encoding, or the layers of visual
processing
> in the retina.)

You could change details, Gen therapy, virus infection, ultraviolet light
But want do you changes then, and then only a few details.

It's strange I know more of my own subjective experiences than that of
others,
and people are also different, Don't you know what you exprience then?

>
> It seems highly likely that "subjective experience" is one of these beasts
> also, and that the complexity will come from how it is built from
primitive
> components, not so much how to make the components themselves.

You can look at what peo[ple say and write and most subjective experience.
So just looking around. Is that so difficult.
>
> -- Don

I thank you for your discussion Don, so we come further, ne?

Ed