[ExI] trying to post

[Stefano Vaj]

On 4 July 2011 18:44, G. Livick <glivick at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Here is where we may have a difference in understanding.  The physical brain
> is not a finite state machine, it is largely analog.

Why, irrespective of some fundamental questions as to whether really
"analog" and continuous system exist, or it is just a matter of high
granularity, I think we are satisfied by now that a digital computing
device can emulate any analog system with arbitrary degree of
accurateness.

> Because the workings of the brain are so
> complex, and so poorly understood, I regard modeling a digital system to
> emulate one unforeseeable at this point in time.

In real life, performance matters. It makes nevertheless a difference
when we know for sure that something is possible, albeit perhaps
unpractical. At the very least in our worldview.

> But even when (and if)
> that is ever actually done, the question about whether the program running
> in the background gives rise to actual intelligence doesn't get answered
> with the solution.

Beyond universal computation capability, the only reasonable
definition for "intelligence" in a qualitative sense is the ability to
emulate well enough system which we consider intelligent (we might add
to that "real-time", but as already mentioned elsewhere it is not
clear why we should, given that we would be likely to consider
intelligent a slowed-down human being).

Other questions are akin IMHO to whether a PC-emulating program
running on an old Macintosh was actually giving rise to actual PC-ness
or not.

-- 
Stefano Vaj