Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists

On Mar 31, 7:37 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31 Mar, 21:07, leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Mar 31, 2:35 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 31 Mar, 18:26, leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 31, 11:53 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm quite happy to continue to investigate your story, and about the
nodes only requiring potential laser connections. Are you going to
make up a frequency for the how often the communication from a
particular node has to take place for it to be regarded as having a
potential connection?

No, I'm going to say that the frequency of communication effectively
defines how fast the neural network processes things (how fast the
robot thinks, effectively). Now if the tick rate of the robot's
"brain" is sufficiently slow we probably won't recognise it as
intelligent, but that's our subjective projection, not an objective
function of the tick rate. Also note, of course, that we want this
network to already be *configured in some particular way (it is the
configuration that is important for having an FPP) and able to *update
that configuration according to new information (again, this is
important for the FPP), so don't go asking about random things with
"potential" connections.

So we are back to the 100 nodes with a 10x10 picture in an ANN with
laser connections. Do they have to explicitly communicate the picture
to the rest of the system for the "I" of the system to have a FPP of
the picture, or is the potential for the system to be able to
communicate with them enough?

No, as I said before, communication is necessary for taking action
with regard to the picture (that is, doing anything because of it) but
the "knowing" is already done. There is no need to "gather" the
information of the picture, because it is already "gathered" within
the "I" of the ANN. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat that.

Here's the thing that really bothers me though: I know very little
about neural networks -- I have a basic understanding of the general
principles having dealt with them from a practical standpoint
occasionally, but I'm about as far from an expert as they come.
Despite this, you seem to apparently know even less about them than I
do (unless you're just playing dumb and trying to lure me into some
Socratic trap*). Given that at least one of you arguments seems to
hinge almost entirely on how neural networks function, I would have
expected you to be rather more of an expert.

* Should this Socratic trap approach be your game here, I don't see
what you stand to gain. So what if I, a non-expert, make a flub; that
hardly defeats physicalism. All a mistake by me would mean is that I
need to go back and read the literature to see how the experts argue
such things. Conversely, that I can be drawn to the edges of my
expertise and still, apparently be arguing coherently with you hardly
bodes well for your arguments.

Well I do have a basic understanding of neural networks.

I think what is needed to make your argument is rather more than a
basic understanding. As far as I can tell you are getting hung up on
irrelevant implementation details.

In your story, you seem to be ok with this, that to take any action
would require the information to be communicated. Though this would
leave the issue of where would the information have to be communicated
to, such that it could be realised in one first person perspective. To
get around this, you have a story that the FPP would know all the
information in the system without the need for it to be communicated,
and thus could experience it. Could you just confirm whether I am
reporting your story correctly?

Let's see if we can go through this again: the information does not
need to be communicated anywhere to be realised in one first person
perspective. Certainly no one node needs to have all such information.
Since the entire *network* of networked nodes is the thing having the
perspective, the information merely needs to be communicated to the
*network*, not some particular node in the system. Now, if 100
particular nodes of the *network* hold the information, it is fair to
say that the *network* holds the information (in some part of itself),
and hence the information doesn't need to be communicated anywhere for
the *network* to have it, since it is already *in* the *network*. So
if the question is: "does the thing that is going to have the first
person perspective of the picture have all the information about the
picture when 100 nodes of the network have hte information?"; the
answer is "yes" because the *network* has all the information it
needs. The *network* can then process the information to take actions
on it.

I suggest you engage someone with more expertise in neural networks
with your questions. I'm out of my field of expertise, and while I
would be interested in picking up the requisite expertise with some
reading, my private study time is already filled with other subjects.

According to what you are saying if 100 nodes were in the network,
they wouldn't need to communicate their information for the network to
have a first person perspective of it. Though what would make the 100
nodes "in the network". If it was an ANN, where the nodes were
connected by electrical conductors, would it be in the ANN, and the
network have a first person perspective of the information?

I feel like I'm in Green Eggs abnd Ham.

Would the ANN have the information?
Yes it would.
Would it have with fox? Would it have it in a box?
Yes it would.
Would it have it on a boat? Would it have it with a goat?
Yes it would
....

You can permute the irrelevant implementation details of the
construction all you want, and my answer will be the same. If it is an
ANN, and presuming it has an FPP that is constituted by some large
portion of the total network, and the right 100 nodes each have their
pixel worth of information, then the "I" of the system has the
information of the picture and nothing needs to be communicated for it
to "know" the picture. I believe I have said this many times. It
doesn't matter what physical means you use to build the neural
network, or how far apart you spread it, or how slow it runs, as long
as it *is* a neural network, with an FPP, and the appropriate 100
nodes have the information.

As for the odd question of when the nodes would be in the network...
The 100 nodes would be "in the network" if they were nodes that were a
functioning part of the ANN. How do you decide whether nodes are
actually part of the ANN or just stray neurons kicking around? Try
using that test.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... does not a neural network make. ... they do no need to communicate anything ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... does not a neural network make. ... they do no need to communicate anything ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... does not a neural network make. ... potential to have an FPP, and the FPP will be some part of that ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... does not a neural network make. ... potential to have an FPP, and the FPP will be some part of that ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ...  You cannot build a neural network out ... 100 nodes *do* communicate the information about the second picture ... Similarly the system wouldn't have information about the firing rules, ...
    (talk.origins)