From: Eugene Leitl (eugene@liposome.genebee.msu.su)
Date: Wed Jul 22 1998 - 11:37:39 MDT
Jonathan Colvin writes:
> Aha...but now we run into another problem. If consciousness is an emergent
> property of "wet" systems..in other words, if the way we "feel" (as opposed
I can't parse 'wet'. Water is a property of the macro/mesoscopic, not the
molecular level. Is consciousness an emergent property of molecular
level? Of course. Is consciousness an emergent property of an unique
molecular configuration? Don't think so. Even if was, it would not invalidate
the possibility of uploads at a low enough simulation level.
> to the mere computational aspects of our brain function) is dependent on the
> chemical aspects of our brain, then a computational model will not capture
> the "wetness" of our consciousness. You can model the combustion of
> hydrogen and oxygen on a computer, but it won't make a bang! Now I'm not
It would make an audible bang: if you were part of the simulation.
A simulated nuclear explosion does not incinerate the machines at
Sandia labs, but it doesn't mean their results are inapplicable
to reality. Yours is a classical fallacy: mixing the simulated and
the simulation environment.
> entirely convinced that consciousness is "wet" but it seems to be a
> possibility that is quite neglected in AI discussion.
> [...]
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST