[ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 21:53:35 UTC 2009


2009/12/13 The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>:
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 6:46:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA.
>
>> I've never accepted simplistic notions of mind uploading that hold
>> that all the information needed is a map of the neural connections. To
>> properly model a brain you may need go down all the way to the
>> molecular level, which would of course require extremely fine scanning
>> techniques and a fantastic amount of computing power. Nevertheless,
>> unless there is something fundamentally non-computable in the brain, a
>> computer model should be possible, and this is sufficient to make the
>> case for functionalism.
>
> Even within the narrow bounds of math and computer science there are provenly non-computable numbers like Chaitin's constant and non-computable functions like the "busy beaver function". The brain is not obligated to be computable. And mind has yet to be satisfactorily defined.

The argument I put forward before (due to Chalmers) shows that IF the
physical behaviour of the brain can be modelled by a computer THEN the
consciousness will follow. There is no need to define consciousness or
mind exactly for the purposes of this argument: it's just that weird
thing that happens to us when our brain is working properly. If the
brain utilises non-computable physics then it won't be possible to
model it on a digital computer, but there is no evidence for
non-computable physics in the brain or anywhere else. It's the physics
which is at issue, not mathematics.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list