[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Stathis,

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:59 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Robots and computers manage multiple inputs without any specific
> “binding”. The “binding” consists in the fact that the different inputs and
> outputs intimately interact.
>

Wait,  What???


The first step a computer does to know if a pixel is ‘ripe enough’ is to
load an abstract representation of that one pixel’s color into a register
of a CPU, Then load another value into another register (dictionary: ripe
enough) then do a difference operation.  This difference operation is
performed by a huge set of *DISCRETE* logic gates.  These kinds of
*DISCRETE* operations on registers in a CPU is the limit of the amount of
computational binding a computer can do.  The abstract output of this large
set of *DISCRETE* binding is loaded into a register.  This gives you yet
another abstract difference value, which is loaded into a register.  This
third value is the CPU’s abstract knowledge of whether it is positive
(dictionary: ripe), or negative (dictionary: not ripe).  And that JUST
gives you the ripeness of one pixel.


We, on the other hand are aware of not just that one pixel, we are aware of
all of them as one computationally bound composite conscious experience.
We are also aware of, if each of the pixels is red, it is ripe, so this
“the strawberry is ripe” info must also be computationally bound in with
all the other pixels.  (And if any part of the strawberry is green, we know
that part isn’t ripe yet, all in one unified composite experience.)


There is nothing enabling any of these *DISCRETE* abstract computer pixels
to be bound to any of the other pixels, other than what is done with a few
CPU registers.  Heck, only one pixel at a time can ever be in the CPU at
any one time.  The closest you get is some additional iteration on all the
pixels, loading them, one at a time, into a register, then collecting a
sum, then doing a divide to get an average or something.  But this single
abstract number that represents the average of all the pixels is in no way
providing any kind of "intimacy" between any of the pixels.


In other words, since there is no machinery in any of this *DISCRETE* logic
enabling any of these pixels to be aware of any of their pixel neighbors,
it is all necessarily like our sub conscious.  NOT conscious, due to lack
of computational binding.


You said: “The “binding” consists in the fact that the different inputs and
outputs intimately interact.”



How can any such *DISCREET* “intimacy” be in any way one single composite
computationally bound composite qualitative experience?  Oh, yea, you just
wave your hands, and ignore the necessary “a miracle happens here” step.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200223/3aeccbf0/attachment.htm>