[ExI] Zombie glutamate

Tomaz Kristan protokol2020 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 14 18:46:22 UTC 2015

Considering yourself as something very special, which can function only on
the so called "organic chemistry as it is"  - and not for example on some
rudimentary but complex enough Turing machine ... that's quite preposterous
and naive, As the atoms weren't very rudimentary as well.

Once your substrate allows a decent complexity - you are on!

We need complexity, not a particular chemistry. Fine, if it's the chemistry
which gives us that complexity. But being a chemo-biological chauvinist -
that's silly.

What bothering  me, is the real possibility, that the complexity required
isn't that high either. That I can be reloaded just too easily.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Brent believes that consciousness is not due to the system
>>>> structure but rather to the substrate.
>>> >> If computers with the same logical structure but with different
>>> substrates (say vacuums tubes,  Germanium transistors and Silicon
>>> transistors) all came up with different answers when you multiplied 27 by
>>> 54 I'd have a lot more confidence that this theory is correct, but they
>>> don't, they all come up with 1458.  Actually calling this a theory is
>>> giving it too much credit as there is no experiment that can be performed
>>> to prove it wrong, or even a experiment that would allow you to learn a
>>> little more about it.
>> > There are experiments that can be performed - try a physically
>> different, but chemically identical substrate using alternative
>> isotopes. t would work just the same
> That would just show what we already know, that intelligent behavior would
> not be effected; but how could you demonstrate that consciousness was not
> changed? You couldn't. That's why consciousness theories, as opposed to
> intelligence theories, are so popular on the internet, they're easy because
> they don't have to actually do anything or explain any experimental
> results, they can just prattle on and on and one consciousness theory works
> just as well (or badly) as another. It would take intelligence and a lot of
> it to come up with a good intelligence theory; but a consciousness
> theoretician doesn't need that, intelligence is just optional for him.
> Consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard.
>   John K Clark
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150214/923df9a4/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list