Re: Implausibility that somonex will provide a logical argument

"someone3" <glenn.spigel3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189731965.064025.4840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 13 Sep, 22:09, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:26:41 -0700, someone3 wrote:

<snip>

No I've never written an emulator but I presume the registers etc of
the Sinclair Spectrum are emulated in software, and the machine
instructions for the Spectrum go through the emulator layer.

You again skipped how changing lower level components allows you to
predict emergent behavior.

Yes I would like citations of where people explain why some physical
activity is consciously experienced and other physical activity isn't.

Start with blindsight.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Blindsight

Removing the striate cortex destroys qualia associated with sight --
victims claim they are blind. However, if they are forced to guess about
a stimulus -- whether a figure in front of them is an X or O, they do
better than chance in picking the correct one.

In your terms: the physical activity of light hitting the retina
requires
the striate cortex in order to be consciously experienced as sight.

I can site you papers where it states that the neural correlate of
consciousness (NCC) is not known, nor is it known why some neurons
would contribute to the NCC and not others, and that the difference
between them is not known. Let alone whether the theories suggest that
it would be linked to organic chemistry, or some configuration
difference.

Go ahead.

Are you joking about citations about people being able to explain the
machines they built. Are you seriously suggesting that people that
build mobile phones don't know how they work? Or the way computers
work can't be explained in terms of what the code compiles to (the
machine instructions), and how the stack is read, and memory is
addressed etc, and how the hardware components work?

This question seems familiar. Hmmmm.....

<from previous post>

Are you suggesting that nobody on this planet can explain why
computers work the way they do, that their behaviour isn't
explainable?

No. Nice strawman, though.

</previous post>

Yeah, I thought I had answered that before.

If you are relying on people not being able to explain why the
technology we have works,

I'm not. You're relying on being able to explain emergent behavior using
only a low-level description of the system. We've asked for you to
justify this, and you've responded with a textbook argument from
incredulity.

Thus, <snip>.

(Reposted as had misread what you said with regards to explaining
technology)

Well with your example of

[snip verbatim copy and paste of previous reply .. why do you bother wasting
our time like that .. post a logical arugment for your position instead]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Implausibility continued
    ... the Sinclair Spectrum are emulated in software, ... instructions for the Spectrum go through the emulator layer. ... the physical activity of light hitting the retina requires ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that somonex will provide a logical argument
    ... the Sinclair Spectrum are emulated in software, ... instructions for the Spectrum go through the emulator layer. ... activity is consciously experienced and other physical activity isn't. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Code density and performance?
    ... > Trust Paul to start a decent thread, ... > instructions might make. ... Might a faster-cycled, narrower fetch be appropriate, allowing ...
    (comp.arch)
  • Re: Psychiatric care fails patients
    ... > nicer than the police cells I have been locked in. ... any way except to give me instructions, ... Vile scum. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Boost process and C
    ... snip ... ... that suddenly the debugger no longer worked at all, ... immediately (it apparently suddenly used Pentium only instructions, ...
    (comp.lang.c)