[ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 15:10:08 UTC 2010


2010/1/5 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Mon, 1/4/10, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me you must accept some type of epiphenomenalism if you say
>> that Cram can pass the TT while having different experiences to
>> Sam.
>
> I don't see how that follows, nor do I posit any guess as to their actual experiences (especially for Cram, who may have none by the time the doctors finish with him).

You alter Cram's consciousness, but it has no effect on his behaviour.
This is the case if you systematically go about replacing neuron after
neuron, until his whole brain is gone, and along with it his
conscious. Therefore, consciousness has no effect on behaviour, at
least in this case.

>> This also makes it impossible to ever study the NCC scientifically.
>> This experiment would be the ideal test for it: the p-neurons function
>> like c-neurons but without the NCC, yet Cram behaves the same as Sam.
>
> We needn't create artificial neurons to study the NCC. We need to identify possible target areas and then to test our theories with technology that switches it off and on in a live patient. Most likely it involves a large swath of neurons that need simultaneously to have the correct synaptic activity and (I would guess) electrical coherence or patterns of some kind. (My guess about the electrical activity helps explain why I reject your beer-cans-and-toilet-paper model of the brain.)

But how would we ever distinguish the NCC from something else that
just had an effect on general neural function? If hypoxia causes loss
of consciousness, that doesn't mean that the NCC is oxygen.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list