Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution

On 22 Aug, 04:03, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:38:30 -0700, someone2 wrote:
I'll post the example of what I said again:

Well, ok, if you really want to work with this.... I'll need the full
explanation of the neural network. I prefer C, but I can handle Python or
C++ (or Java, if you must).

Your whole point was
that it wasn't possible.

My point is you haven't shown it. Code, please.

Do you concede that it is, or are you still
living in denial about the matter?

I've written neural nets, I've read a bit of neural science, I've done a
spot or two of AI. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I hope you're not
suggesting that I should accept your argument if I think it's incorrect.

If you want to demonstrate a full explanation does what you says it does,
then provide it. That's how science is done -- "Nullius in Verba"
translates nicely to "show me the code".

I think we both understand that your programming skills aren't up to this.
In another post, I've outlined a far simpler task that will demonstrate
your approach is correct.

Let me repeat that: If you calculate Rado's Sigma function for n=6, you
will not only get a nice publication, but I will stand joyfully corrected.

I'll give the example again:

Supposing there was an artificial neural network, with a billion more
nodes than you had neurons in your brain, and a very 'complicated'
configuration, which drove a robot. The robot, due to its behaviour
(being a Turing Equivalent), caused some atheists to claim it was
consciously experiencing. Now supposing each message between each node
contained additional information such as source node, destination node
which could be the same as the source node, for feedback loops), the
time the message was sent, and the message. Each node wrote out to a
log on receipt of a message, and on sending a message out. Now after
an hour of the atheist communicating with the robot, the logs could be
examined by a bank of computers, varifying, that for the input
messages each received, the outputs were those expected by a single
node in a lab given the same inputs. They could also varify that no
unexplained messages appeared.

Why do you need a full explanation of the neural network, do you deny
that whatever behaviour it displays can be explained as being the net
result of the node interactions, and that each node can be explained
as behaving as it would be expected to if it had no sensations. Which
would mean the behaviour can be explained as being as expected if the
physical activity had no conscious experiences (had no sensations).




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Robot behaviour
    ... Though in retrospect the behaviour of the neural network will always ... Changing the terminology from the word "consciousness" to the phrase ... You think that human behavior isn't fully explained by (INSERT STATEMENT ... you think that a full explanation of human behavior must also ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... explanation of the neural network. ... but I can handle Python or ... If you want to demonstrate a full explanation does what you says it does, ... I think we both understand that your programming skills aren't up to this. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Making Robots
    ... the neural network that you are a part of. ... Now when you make a robot, and you use a computer, you are not giving it, ... but their body and arms and head would all ... So now you have a whole lot of people, making complex behaviors, in a 3d ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading