<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Brent Allsop </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank">brent.allsop@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p> All you seem to do is repeat
over and over again with your overly simplistic system that A: the
brain is a system made of parts, that B: each part interacts with
neighboring parts, and finally C: if you replace one part with a
different part that interacts with its neighbors in the same way,
then the system as a whole will behave in the same way.<br></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">That admirably summarizes my position, except that I see nothing <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">overly simplistic</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> about it. All complex objects are made of simpler parts, and the only important thing about a part is the way it interacts with other parts. </span> </font></div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>In addition to all the "hard" (as in impossible) problems that
result with your insufficient swapping steps</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I don't understand this objection of yours.</div><span style="font-size:large"> </span><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>there is this: I
know I (there I didn't say "we", are you happy John?) <p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Yes because I think its important not to be a organic bigot. Without exception every single objection to a computer being conscious can also be used to argue that none of your fellow human beings are conscious. If the argument is good for one it's good for the other, and so both should be treated equally. I might be paraphrasing just a tad but I think Martin Luther King said: </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><font size="4"><i>I have a dream that one day <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">we will </div>live in a nation where <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">intelligent beings </div>will not be judged by <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">whether their brain is made of silicon or carbon but by</div> the content of their character.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>I have a dream<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">!</div> </i></font></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Well... that's how I remember what he said anyway.</font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>can be
conscious of 1: redness and 2: greenness at the same time, as a
composite experience. <p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">And a computer can remember 2 different things at the same time.</font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>And 3: using this composite awareness of
each of these qualitatively different functionalities express that
they are different. <p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">If they were not different they wouldn't be 2 things, it would be one thing. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>And 3: using this composite awareness of each of these qualitatively different functionalities express that they are different. </span></blockquote><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Yes, but I don't see your point. If there is somebody around here </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">claiming that red is the same as green it certainly isn't me.</div></font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>With the system that you describe, and the
simplistic way you do the do the neural substitution on "parts"
<p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Why the quotation marks? For some reason reductionism isn't very trendy nowadays but it's what makes science work. </font></div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>with minimal interactions with their neighbors,<p></p></div></blockquote><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Nobody is demanding </div>minimal interactions with their neighbors<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">, let the interactions be gargantuan if you like, but if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall behavior of the system.</div></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Plain and simple, your system is completely qualia
blind, like all the experimental neuro science being done today
that I know of.<br><p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default"><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">The system as described is certainly not blind, it can distinguish between red and green as well as you can, maybe better. It's true that I can't prove that the system as described actually experiences qualia, but then I can't prove that the system called</font><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> "</span>Brent Allsop" actually experiences qualia either, not unless I accept the postulate that Charles Darwin was correct. </font></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>If you do a neuro substitution on any system which does have
sufficient detail to at least model these 3 necessary functions<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> [...]</span><p></p><p></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">Then</font></div><font size="4"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the substituted neuron will effect other neurons differently than the way the original neuron did and it's just a bad simulation and all you've learned is that a bad simulation will bring no enlightenment to anyone. </div></font><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark</div></font></div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>
<p></p></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>