[ExI] all we are is just llms

[Giovanni Santostasi]

*But at some point, you need to have a transducing dictionary to interpret
those spike trains, which are only code*No, what you need to have is an
association between a set of inputs and outputs this is all. This is how
the association of the presence of external conditions related to light and
the sensation of redness was created. I explained how the story goes. Some
primate ancestors was able to distinguish (via a different shade of grey)
better ripe fruits than others. With time more and more neurons in the
brain of the primate started to be recruited to do this discrimination, via
filtering the colors, arranging them in categories or whatever was
necessary to separate red from green. This is where the translation,
transduction comes from. It was a form of UNSUPERVISED LEARNING.
The system didn't have to be taught by some external entity what red was,
it taught itself. Maybe you are lacking knowledge about Machine Learning,
AI and so on and to you, this type of unsupervised learning seems
impossible but it is done all the time. Evolution had millions of years and
an efficient selection mechanism to achieve this. The sensation of red is
the translation and it is not simpler or more direct than "RED". RED is
just an addition (so maybe it is a little bit more complex but this doesn't
make the sensation that fundamental either) on top of the sensation. By the
way, the sensation can be bypassed, one can envision making it a second
step that doesn't engage awareness and this information can be sent
directly to the language region, and that region then produces a word for
it when certain sensory inputs are present.
Giovanni

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:01 PM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Brent,
> To you the [image: red_border.png] is mysterious but "RED" is not. They
> are both mysterious. I hear the word RED and I react to it, I have
> associations in my mind relative to this word, different objects I consider
> colored in red, memories, experiences, and emotions.
> Why *[image: red_border.png] *is more mysterious than "RED"?
> The brain created this phenomenon of consciousness and I get it it is
> weird, it is amazing that we are aware of ourselves. But your quest of
> finding the secret of consciousness by being fixated on  *[image:
> red_border.png] *is really misplaced. *[image: red_border.png] *is not
> less complicated, less indirect, less codelike than "RED". It is not even
> more subjective given you don't know what "RED" means to me less than what [image:
> red_border.png] means to me. Also what *[image: red_border.png]* means to
> me is basically almost irrelevant to understand what consciousness is.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 1:51 PM Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *One uses an abstract code for red, which isn't red, like this one:
>> "RED"  Since it isn't red, you need a dictionary to know what it is a code
>> for.*
>> *The other one uses your knowledge of  [image: red_border.png], which is
>> redness, not a code for redness.  The quality of your knowledge of
>>  [image: red_border.png]  is your definition of "*RED*"*
>>
>> BRENT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CODE IS MADE OF ! IT IS
>> STILL SPIKING NEURONS WHEN YOU SAY "RED" AND WHEN YOU PERCEIVE [image:
>> red_border.png]. THEY ARE BOTH MADE OF THE SAME STUFF, SPIKING
>> ELECTRICAL PULSES !
>> Yes, I'm screaming.
>> *[image: red_border.png] *IS A CODE FOR REDNESS. IT IS. THE BRAIN ONLY
>> USES SPIKES OF ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:44 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 24/04/2023 05:16, Gordon Swobe wrote:
>>> > These are impressive feats in software engineering, interesting and
>>> > amazing to be sure, but it's just code.
>>>
>>>
>>> ... As opposed to what?? What on earth could a system - any system - use
>>> except 'just code'?
>>>
>>> All data processing systems use 'just code', including our brains (which
>>> use a type of morse code, which you already know, unless you haven't
>>> been listening, or just disagree with me on this).
>>>
>>> Er, do you? You haven't even mentioned this, as far as I can remember,
>>> in any of your posts. But it's an important - essential, even - point.
>>> The brain uses these spike trains - a kind of morse code - as it's
>>> internal language. That's its 'code'.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we'd better establish if you disagree with this, because you're
>>> saying some very strange things now. I know you want to concentrate on
>>> higher-level things, especially human language, but if we can't agree on
>>> what lies under those levels, we're not really communicating at all.
>>>
>>> Do you agree that the brain uses spike-trains - a form of binary code -
>>> as its internal language? Or do you have an alternative hypothesis?
>>>
>>> Ben
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20230424/90395cab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: red_border.png
Type: image/png
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230424/90395cab/attachment.png>