<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/9/2016 7:53 PM, Stathis
Papaioannou wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On 10 May 2016 at 00:44, spike <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:spike66@att.net"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" lang="EN-US">
<p class="MsoNormal">Nothing particularly profound or
insightful in this AI article, but it is good clean
fun:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125"
target="_blank">https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He reminds me a little of Roger
Penrose’s take on the subject from a long time ago: he
introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both
while offering little or no evidence or support, then
reveals he is pretty much a follower of one of the
two: the Church of AI-theists.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are plenty of AI-theists, but
nowhere have I ever seen a really good argument for
why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and
synapses. Once we understand them well enough, we can
write a sim of one. We already have sims of
complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear plants
and such. So why not a brain cell? And if so, why
not two, and why not a connectome and why can we not
simulate a brain? I have been pondering that question
for over 2 decades and have still never found a good
reason. That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of
the Singularitarian.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Penrose's argument is that neurons utilise exotic
physics which is non-computable. If this were true, we
would not be able to emulate neurons with a computer. But
there is no real evidence that it is true. </div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And simulated neurons and dendrite synapses are surely possible, but
not the point. Sure a word like "red" can represent, and thereby
simulate a redness quality, but it clearly does not have the quality
it can represent. And unless you know how to qualitatively
interpret any abstract representation such as a word like "red" you
can't know what it does represent. The same is true for any
simulation of consciousness. Sure, you can simulate any
consciousness, and its qualities, but, again, unless you know how to
interpret what it is representing, and simulating, you can't ,now,
qualitatively what that simulation is qualitatively representing.
After all, to me, red may be more like your green, for all we
currently know.<br>
<br>
Brent Allsop<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>