[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found
stathisp at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 02:12:18 UTC 2020
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 07:58, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
I return to my standard line: if the machine or animal behaves as if all
the different inputs are integrated, then that should be enough for all the
different inputs to be integrated in its consciousness. There is no way an
extra process to combine the inputs could evolve.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat