[ExI] Do digital computers feel?

Tue Dec 27 17:42:02 UTC 2016

Well that's the big question, are mathematical infinities real? I don't
know, all I know is that so far nobody has found a infinite number of
anything in the physical world.

I have!  I'll let you know when I am through counting them.

bill w

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Which camp do you consider yourself in?
>
> A Computationalist.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Clark wrote:
>>> <Ah Analog computers, this topic has come up before on the list, I wrote
>>> this in 1995: [. . .] Before we begin construction there are a few
>>> helpful
>>> hints I'd like to pass along. Always keep your workplace neat and clean.
>>> Make sure your analog computer is cold, as it will not operate at any
>>> finite temperature above absolute zero. Use only analog substances and
>>> processes, never use digital things like matter, energy, spin, or
>>> electrical charge when you build your analog computer.>
>>>
>>> This is a straw man argument. Nobody claimed the brain is an analog
>>> computer. Rafal simply asked that if mathematical infinities are real, as
>>> experimental evidence supports both with regard to the reality of the
>>> wave
>>> function and the lack of granularity in space-time, then might not these
>>> infinities allow the brain to generate a continuum of mental states
>>> instead of finite number of discrete mental states?
>>>
>>
>> If infinities are relevant to mental states, they must be irrelevant to
>> any external behavior that can be tested in any way. This is because the
>> holographic principal places discrete and finite bounds on the amount of
>> information that can be stored in a an area of space of finite volume. Even
>> if there is infinite information in your head, no physical process
>> (including you) can access it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why not. The brain certainly exhibits wave-like phenomena;
>>> they are called brain waves. The physics of waves is well understood, and
>>> they propagate on a continuum both mathematically and physically. And
>>> yes,
>>> while the quantum properties you enumerate are discrete, the observed
>>> states of those properties are dictated by a quantum wave function which
>>> is itself continuous.
>>> 
>>> John Clark wrote:
>>> <There are an infinite number, in fact an uncountabley infinite
>>> number,
>>> of maps that can be drawn on a flat square,  but only 4 colors are needed
>>> to keep all the countries on the map separate. This was proven by a
>>> computer way back in 1977, but to this day nobody can prove it
>>> without
>>> a computer.>
>>>
>>> No actually it was proven by some mathematicians that used a computer to
>>> prove their theorem. The computer didn't even understand the problem it
>>> was trying to solve. Inductive reasoning seems really hard for computers
>>> but seems second nature to us. If you want to be convincing, present
>>> empirical evidence and not specious arguments based on an unsupported
>>> axiom that the brain is some kind of wet naturally evolved digital
>>> computer running a boolean alogorithm.
>>>
>>> During the Victorian era, when clocks and and analog pocket-watches were
>>> the most complex technology that people knew of, it became fashionable
>>> for
>>> them to believe that nature was some sort of giant clockwork mechanism.
>>> These days the most complex machines we can think of are digital
>>> computers
>>> and it seems natural to try to think of the universe as some sort of
>>> giant
>>> computer. We are likely just as wrong as the Victorians were.
>>>
>>>
>> This is analogy is somewhat backwards, in my opinion.
>>
>> It's not that the brain works like a computer, it's that computers can
>> perfectly mimic any finite process. They are "universal machines" in the
>> same sense of a universal remote, or in that a speaker system can function
>> as a "universal instrument".
>>
>> Therefore, if the brain is a machine, and is finite, then an
>> appropriately programmed computer can perfectly emulate any of its
>> behaviors. Philosophers generally fall into one os three camps, on the
>> question of consciousness and the computational theory of mind:
>>
>> *Non-computable physicists - *Believe human thought involves physical
>> processes that are non-computable, and therefore conclude that it’s
>> impossible to replicate the behavior of a human brain using a computer.
>>
>> *Weak AI proponents - * Believe the behavior of the human brain can be
>> replicated by computer, but assume such a reproduction, no matter how good,
>> would not possess a mind or consciousness.
>>
>> *Computationalists - *Believe the behavior of the human brain can be
>> replicated by a computer, and assume that when the reproduction is
>> sufficiently faithful, it possesses a mind and conscious.
>>
>>
>> Which camp do you consider yourself in?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161227/915006e8/attachment.html>