Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > >> [snip] > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > I mean everything. So, given > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > be done by a made thing. > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > >> Why don't you > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > >> from computers. > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > >for this newsgroup. > > > Go ahead and try. > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > try? > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > >thread > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > And > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > matches best. > > > > > > If > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > >contribute to it. > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > present your material I won't push you. > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell us your story. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 1:56?am, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:37:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris wrote: > > >I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > >wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > >explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > >don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > Can you post anything relevant? > > >If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > >organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > >should start up a new thread as I suggested. > > No, I am interested in how biological entities do things that made > things can't. That was your claim and that is what interests me. If you are genuinely interested in reading my explanation for why biological organisms are consciously aware of sound, and computers aren't, you should start up a new thread and we can discuss it properly, as I suggested. Think up a sensible title and a few intelligent and reasonable questions to start with, post it, and I'll look out for it in the listings and reply. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 02:07, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 1:56?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:37:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris wrote: > > > >I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > >wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > >explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > >don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > Can you post anything relevant? > > > >If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > >organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > >should start up a new thread as I suggested. > > > No, I am interested in how biological entities do things that made > > things can't. That was your claim and that is what interests me. > > If you are genuinely interested in reading my explanation for why > biological organisms are consciously aware of sound, and computers > aren't, you should start up a new thread and we can discuss it > properly, as I suggested. Think up a sensible title and a few > intelligent and reasonable questions to start with, post it, and I'll > look out for it in the listings and reply. > ok Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > >> [snip] > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > be done by a made thing. > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > >> Why don't you > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > >> from computers. > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > try? > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > >thread > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > And > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > matches best. > > > > > If > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > >contribute to it. > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > us your story. The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along the auditory nerves from the ears. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > try? > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > >thread > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > And > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > matches best. > > > > > > If > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > us your story. > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > the auditory nerves from the ears. > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA285427 Because it mentions: "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the listener were analyzing the spectral picture." Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 02:17, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > > try? > > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > > >thread > > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > > And > > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > > matches best. > > > > > > > If > > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > > us your story. > > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > > the auditory nerves from the ears. > > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: > > http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&id... > > Because it mentions: > > "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- > frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the > listener were analyzing the spectral picture."- Hide quoted text - > By the way, I started up the thread for you, it's called "The James Norris Story of Sound". Perhaps you might want to just write a few paragraphs about what you are going to talk about, like explaining the conscious experience of sound for example, just so that the people know what they should look forward to. I didn't copy in the alt.religion group, as I doubt they'd believe your story, but if any there are any following the post, you can see it on alt.atheism, and if you have any questions for James, you can add in the alt.religion group if you think they'd be interested in hearing Jame's story. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 2:17?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > > try? > > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > > >thread > > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > > And > > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > > matches best. > > > > > > > If > > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > > us your story. > > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > > the auditory nerves from the ears. > > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: > > http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&id... > > Because it mentions: > > "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- > frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the > listener were analyzing the spectral picture." Yes, as you guessed, the paper you have found is out-of-date. You can post thousands of out-of-date papers from pre-1999, none of the authors were aware that experimental evidence has since shown that the ear is not performing fourier analysis as had previously been thought. Since 1961, Bekesy's travelling wave theory, and refinements of it, had been thought to explain how the Basilar Membrane (BM) analyses the incoming sound into spectral components whose magnitude was represented at positions along it, because of vibrational properties of the BM. But researchers discovered that some patients whose BMs had become solidified because of a fungal infection, so it could not be vibrating, could still hear, which disproved the spectral analysis suggestions of the travelling wave theory (also called the Place theory) in the paper you found. There are thousands of similar published papers, and not all post-1999 researchers have caught up with the new 'temporal' theories and pattern-matching ideas. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 2:24?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 26 Jun, 02:17, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > > > try? > > > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > > > >thread > > > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > > > And > > > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > > > matches best. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > > > us your story. > > > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > > > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > > > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > > > the auditory nerves from the ears. > > > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: > > >http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&id... > > > Because it mentions: > > > "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- > > frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the > > listener were analyzing the spectral picture."- Hide quoted text - > > By the way, I started up the thread for you, it's called "The James > Norris Story of Sound". Perhaps you might want to just write a few > paragraphs about what you are going to talk about, like explaining the > conscious experience of sound for example, just so that the people > know what they should look forward to. I didn't copy in the > alt.religion group, as I doubt they'd believe your story, but if any > there are any following the post, you can see it on alt.atheism, and > if you have any questions for James, you can add in the alt.religion > group if you think they'd be interested in hearing James's story. Well if you have, I'll change it to Norris's Theory of Hearing, because that would be a better title. Your new thread hasn't yet appeared in my view of alt.atheism, however, so I can't answer the questions that you will have asked in your posting. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 02:40, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2:17?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > > > try? > > > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > > > >thread > > > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > > > And > > > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > > > matches best. > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > > > us your story. > > > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > > > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > > > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > > > the auditory nerves from the ears. > > > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: > > >http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&id... > > > Because it mentions: > > > "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- > > frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the > > listener were analyzing the spectral picture." > > Yes, as you guessed, the paper you have found is out-of-date. You can > post thousands of out-of-date papers from pre-1999, none of the > authors were aware that experimental evidence has since shown that the > ear is not performing fourier analysis as had previously been > thought. Since 1961, Bekesy's travelling wave theory, and refinements > of it, had been thought to explain how the Basilar Membrane (BM) > analyses the incoming sound into spectral components whose magnitude > was represented at positions along it, because of vibrational > properties of the BM. But researchers discovered that some patients > whose BMs had become solidified because of a fungal infection, so it > could not be vibrating, could still hear, which disproved the spectral > analysis suggestions of the travelling wave theory (also called the > Place theory) in the paper you found. There are thousands of similar > published papers, and not all post-1999 researchers have caught up > with the new 'temporal' theories and pattern-matching ideas. > That late development explains why I wasn't aware of it. The lectures when I was at university, that covered auditory perception were pre-1999 by quite some way. I look forward to your explanation under the thread "The James Norris Story of Sound", that is up on the channel, and you might want to give some kind of intro to. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 02:45, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 2:24?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Jun, 02:17, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > > > > try? > > > > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > > > > >thread > > > > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > > > > matches best. > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > > > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > > > > us your story. > > > > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > > > > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > > > > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > > > > the auditory nerves from the ears. > > > > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: > > > >http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&id... > > > > Because it mentions: > > > > "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- > > > frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the > > > listener were analyzing the spectral picture."- Hide quoted text - > > > By the way, I started up the thread for you, it's called "The James > > Norris Story of Sound". Perhaps you might want to just write a few > > paragraphs about what you are going to talk about, like explaining the > > conscious experience of sound for example, just so that the people > > know what they should look forward to. I didn't copy in the > > alt.religion group, as I doubt they'd believe your story, but if any > > there are any following the post, you can see it on alt.atheism, and > > if you have any questions for James, you can add in the alt.religion > > group if you think they'd be interested in hearing James's story. > > Well if you have, I'll change it to Norris's Theory of Hearing, > because that would be a better title. Your new thread hasn't yet > appeared in my view of alt.atheism, however, so I can't answer the > questions that you will have asked in your posting. > It appears on google groups, what viewer are you using? I haven't asked any questions, you haven't put forward your theory yet. Though one obvious one, would be why does the mechanism have the conscious experience of sound, considering you were going to explain why it does, and a machine wouldn't have. Quote
Guest someone2 Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On 26 Jun, 02:55, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 26 Jun, 02:45, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2:24?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 Jun, 02:17, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Jun, 02:11, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 26, 1:57?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Jun, 01:37, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > > > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > > > <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > > > > > > > > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > > > > > > > > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > > > > >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> [snip] > > > > > > > > > >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same (as > > > > > > > > >> >the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer program in > > > > > > > > >> >your example) that emulated the brain would behave like a computer > > > > > > > > >> >program. It would follow a sequence of CPU instructions that a > > > > > > > > >> >programmer had written, and would modify data in the RAM. In no way > > > > > > > > >> >is that the same as the behaviour of a brain. > > > > > > > > > >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > > > > > > > > >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > > > > > > > >> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding of > > > > > > > > >hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > > > > > > > > Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > > > > > > > > neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > > > > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > > > > > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > > > > > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > > > > > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > > > > > > > > I mean everything. So, given > > > > > > > > you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > > > > > > > > biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > > > > > > > > Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > > > > > > > > be done by a made thing. > > > > > > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > > > > > > > > >> Why don't you > > > > > > > > >> explain to us how brains produce thought such that it is so different > > > > > > > > >> from computers. > > > > > > > > > >I could explain in some detail, but the detail would be that of audio > > > > > > > > >engineering, audiology and neuroscience, and probably too complicated > > > > > > > > >for this newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > Go ahead and try. > > > > > > > > You don't really want to know how your ears work do you? It's not > > > > > > > easy to understand; some intelligent people can't quite get their > > > > > > > minds round it even after years of study. Are you sure you want to > > > > > > > try? > > > > > > > > > >It would also be unfair to the author of this > > > > > > > > >thread > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but threads don't have authors, they have participants. > > > > > > > > > >(he claims that materialism is implausible), > > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > >you seem to counter that human thought is not materially produced. > > > > > > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > > > > > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > > > > > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > > > > > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > > > > > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > > > > > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > > > > > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > > > > > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > > > > > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > > > > > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > > > > > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > > > > > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > > > > > > > > >who wouldn't want > > > > > > > > >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > > > > > > > > >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > > > > > > > > I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > > > > > > > > some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > > > > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > > > > > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > > > > > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > > > > > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > > > > > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > > > > > > matches best. > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > >you want to start up a new thread in this newsgroup to discuss how > > > > > > > > >human hearing is different to computer hearing, I will be happy to > > > > > > > > >contribute to it. > > > > > > > > > Nah, I think that threads can drift. But if you are unwilling to > > > > > > > > present your material I won't push you. > > > > > > > > I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > > > > > > > wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > > > > > > > explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > > > > > > > don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > > > > > > > If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > > > > > > > organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > > > > > > > should start up a new thread as I suggested.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> Well the ears perform a fourier analysis, and the same analysis is > > > > > > used in machines. You have my vote to start up a new thread and tell > > > > > > us your story. > > > > > > The ears do not perform a fourier analysis, as was suggested by Ohm > > > > > almost two centuries ago. These days, it is known that the auditory > > > > > cortex pattern-matches streams of electrical impulses sent to it along > > > > > the auditory nerves from the ears. > > > > > Just did a google search and I guess this paper is out of date: > > > > >http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&id... > > > > > Because it mentions: > > > > > "Complex sounds are Fourier analyzed to produce an amplitude-by- > > > > frequency 'picture' and the perception process is modeled as if the > > > > listener were analyzing the spectral picture."- Hide quoted text - > > > > By the way, I started up the thread for you, it's called "The James > > > Norris Story of Sound". Perhaps you might want to just write a few > > > paragraphs about what you are going to talk about, like explaining the > > > conscious experience of sound for example, just so that the people > > > know what they should look forward to. I didn't copy in the > > > alt.religion group, as I doubt they'd believe your story, but if any > > > there are any following the post, you can see it on alt.atheism, and > > > if you have any questions for James, you can add in the alt.religion > > > group if you think they'd be interested in hearing James's story. > > > Well if you have, I'll change it to Norris's Theory of Hearing, > > because that would be a better title. Your new thread hasn't yet > > appeared in my view of alt.atheism, however, so I can't answer the > > questions that you will have asked in your posting. > > It appears on google groups, what viewer are you using? I haven't > asked any questions, you haven't put forward your theory yet. Though > one obvious one, would be why does the mechanism have the conscious > experience of sound, considering you were going to explain why it > does, and a machine wouldn't have. > I've posted to the new thread again. If you don't see it still, perhaps you should just post up your "James Norris Theory of Sound" thread yourself. I'll look forward to reading it, or perhaps just a short intro to what your theory is going to discuss in the morning, as it is late in the UK. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in news:1182812217.732849.12130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 25, 11:17?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> innews:1182800402.912119.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 25, 7:56?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> >> innews:1182797074.772268.53300@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > Computers aren't conscious. If you think they might be, you >> >> > don't understand what consciousness is. >> >> >> So what is consciousness then? >> >> > Consciousness is 'awareness of reality', and has evolved in mammals >> > because it is a Darwinian survival trait. To be aware of reality >> > requires sense organs that sense reality, and a brain to experience >> > the senses - these evolved along with consciousness. >> >> > Take the awareness of hunger, as a simple example. Underneath it >> > all, the occurrence in nature of low-blood sugar levels in an >> > organism to make it move about and ingest material from the >> > surroundings, is little more than a chemical process. Low level >> > organisms that don't have brains are not aware of their >> > surroundings, and are not conscious, but they still eat. A >> > biological organism dies if it doesn't eat, and, in conscious >> > animals, nature has evolved the ability to feel hunger, together >> > with the intelligence to find food in the environment. The >> > experience of hunger occurs in the brain, not the stomach - if we >> > didn't have a brain, we wouldn't feel hungry; one could say that >> > brains evolved solely so that the animal can experience hunger, and >> > fill its stomach because of the hunger, otherwise it would die. If >> > the awareness of hunger hadn't evolved, the species would not >> > survive, because the animal wouldn't eat. When an animal's blood >> > sugar levels are low, a pattern of neurons forms in its brain which >> > indicate to the animal that it is hungry, and should eat. >> > Conscious evolved animals would not exist if they didn't feel >> > hungry sometimes; low sugar-levels cause a brain pattern >> > corresponding to hunger, and that is all that consciousness (of >> > hunger) is. The awareness has evolved because it is directly >> > related to reality, and that awareness of reality is what we call >> > consciousness. >> >> > The more aware of hunger, and what to do about it, the species >> > becomes, the better the species survives, and that causes evolution >> > to maximise awareness of reality (consciousness) - animals which >> > are less conscious just die out, because they can't compete with >> > the animals that understand their surroundings. Our own awareness >> > is very highly- evolved and we tend to think of it as particularly >> > special, but from nature's point of view, consciousness is no more >> > special than a giraffe's neck or a toenail, each of which is >> > similarly highly evolved to a brain. >> >> > I hope you can understand from my postings, what consciousness is, >> > and how conscious awareness has evolved along with brains and the >> > associated sense organs, over billions of generations of continuous >> > evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule automatic reactions >> > to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, to our full-blown human >> > 'we understand everything' awareness of reality. You are unlikely >> > to find a better explanation than the one I have given, and if you >> > don't understand it at first, you should think about it >> > occasionally over a period of a few weeks. If you are reasonably >> > intelligent, you will then understand what consciousness is. >> >> OK, fine so far, but your explanation up to here doesn't say anything >> about why a computer cannot be conscious. >> > > Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. They > are designed just to perform simple arithmetic/logical operations at > high speed, and there is no reason to expect them to be conscious. > They certainly haven't evolved any ability to be aware of and interact > with the environment so that they can exist, any more than a teaspoon > has, so why would they be any more conscious than a teaspoon? > So what if computers haven't evolved? Comparing them to a teaspoon doesn't make their computational power equivalent to a teaspoon - it is equivalent to that of the neural networks that make up a brain. > You could pretend that a robot was conscious, by copying brain > patterns from a human and arranging them in the computer 'memory', and > then getting the robot to say 'I want food' whenever the memory > corresponding to 'hunger' was accessed by the computer program. You > could plug the robot into electricity until it made a programmed > 'burping' sound, and possibly turn on a small tap to let out some > smelly water at the same time, to make the effect more convincing. But > that would clearly just be an expensive toy doll. It would be simpler > to give the computer a wig made of human hair, and then talk about the > computer's behaviour compared to a human, than to bother with computer > simulation of patterns of biological neuronal activity, and discussing > the computer behaviour. > Hmm, condescension. Yes, that's a good way to convince a skeptic of your arguments. > I haven't said that computers 'cannot' be conscious, but it is about > as likely that a computer is conscious as that a mechanised wheelchair > is conscious. The evolution of the human species is even less likely than that, and yet it happened, so your arguments from implausibility fall short of being convincing. > It is more likely that clouds of chemicals containing > electrical activity could be conscious, on a planet such as Jupiter > perhaps. The only conscious beings we know of are biologically > evolved ones, and it may well be the case that biological creatures > are the only conscious creatures that can exist. Seems like a rather blatant assertion to make without any support. > The notion of a > conscious robot is just the same ancient myth of golems and statues > brought to life, given an up-to-date gloss because of modern > technology. Anyone who imagines that computers might be conscious > doesn't really understand consciousness, or that computers are just > complicated machines, like a car or a television - it is almost more > likely that a galaxy might be conscious, or a forest or ocean, but to > me, that is also so unlikely that if it turned out to be true, I'd > consider changing my religious beliefs and start thinking that perhaps > God does exist after all. > Ah, touch up your blatant assertion with a little arrogant well- poisoning about how anybody who disagrees with your arrogant presumptions just doesn't understand consciousness and you've got yourself a foolproof proof. Except that we're not fools. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in news:1182818241.686843.18710@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in >> >> >> >> >> >> <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris >> >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in >> >> >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same >> >> >(as the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer >> >> >program in your example) that emulated the brain would behave >> >> >like a computer program. It would follow a sequence of CPU >> >> >instructions that a programmer had written, and would modify data >> >> >in the RAM. In no way is that the same as the behaviour of a >> >> >brain. >> >> >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce >> >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? >> >> > > >>> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding >>> of hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. >> >> Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about >> neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > >> I mean everything. So, given >> you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about >> biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. >> Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't >> be done by a made thing. > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > Is sound a pattern of vibration in the air or is sound a perception of a stimulus? <...> >> >> And you seem to counter that human thought is not materially >> produced. > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > Do we really need to get down to that level of detail for you to make your point? If you're going for the reductionist view that the human auditory apparatus is not the same as a computer sound input device, well of course not. But once you get to the recognition algorithms, I think that the distinction is rather harder to draw. > > >> >> >who wouldn't want >> >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects >> >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. >> >> I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have >> some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > matches best. > Ah, now we're getting to my area. Of course what you've described is only what I would call the "lexical phase" of analysis, converting auditory input into symbolic form. Beyond that comes syntactic and then semantic analysis to extact meaning. This is where I think that a reductionist argument about the difference between the mechanics of the ear and the computer processing of sound might begin to falter. <...> -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 3:54?am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote innews:1182812217.732849.12130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > > On Jun 25, 11:17?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > >> innews:1182800402.912119.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On Jun 25, 7:56?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > [...] > >> > I hope you can understand from my postings, what consciousness is, > >> > and how conscious awareness has evolved along with brains and the > >> > associated sense organs, over billions of generations of continuous > >> > evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule automatic reactions > >> > to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, to our full-blown human > >> > 'we understand everything' awareness of reality. You are unlikely > >> > to find a better explanation than the one I have given, and if you > >> > don't understand it at first, you should think about it > >> > occasionally over a period of a few weeks. If you are reasonably > >> > intelligent, you will then understand what consciousness is. > > >> OK, fine so far, but your explanation up to here doesn't say anything > >> about why a computer cannot be conscious. > > > Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. They > > are designed just to perform simple arithmetic/logical operations at > > high speed, and there is no reason to expect them to be conscious. > > They certainly haven't evolved any ability to be aware of and interact > > with the environment so that they can exist, any more than a teaspoon > > has, so why would they be any more conscious than a teaspoon? > > So what if computers haven't evolved? Comparing them to a teaspoon > doesn't make their computational power equivalent to a teaspoon - it is > equivalent to that of the neural networks that make up a brain. You seem to think that nature evolved the brain independently of the rest of the body. If that were the case, there would probably not be much difference between a computer neural network and a brain, as you suggest. But in fact, as you probably know deep in your subconsious mind, the brain evolved to bioelectrically trigger the heart about once per second so it provides blood to the brain and the rest of a biological organism such as yourself. From nature's perspective, the brain is less important than the penis and vagina. The Chinese Room and Turing test immediately fail if you try to mate with the computer. If you can't tell the difference between a computer and a person, you are similar to a zebra that thinks it's a horse. From nature's point of view, zebra and horse are different species and cannot procreate, in the same way that a computer and a human cannot produce offspring. Evolution depends on the sexual transmission of genetic characteristics via the DNA molecule (and even the Catholic Pope agrees that Darwinism is 'more than a hypothesis'). It is possible that conscious awareness of reality is less important, as a Darwinian survival trait, than the solidity of an organism's cilia. So for example. after a few thousand generations of human evolution from today, humans awareness of reality might have been discarded by nature, to be replaced by humans who mate with each other based only on their hairstyles, and their ability to make conscious decisions about reality would be irrelevant. > > The notion of a > > conscious robot is just the same ancient myth of golems and statues > > brought to life, given an up-to-date gloss because of modern > > technology. Anyone who imagines that computers might be conscious > > doesn't really understand consciousness, or that computers are just > > complicated machines, like a car or a television - it is almost more > > likely that a galaxy might be conscious, or a forest or ocean, but to > > me, that is also so unlikely that if it turned out to be true, I'd > > consider changing my religious beliefs and start thinking that perhaps > > God does exist after all. > > Ah, touch up your blatant assertion with a little arrogant well- > poisoning about how anybody who disagrees with your arrogant > presumptions just doesn't understand consciousness and you've got > yourself >> a foolproof proof. Except that we're not fools. It is very easy for me to accept that we are not fools. I accept (that is, I understand because of the evidence) that I am not a fool. 'We' are not both fools because I am not a fool. You might or might not be a fool - as I only have a few paragraphs of your writings to make the decision on, I wouldn't immediately say 'you are a fool', because you might just be pretending to be a fool. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" A. Pope Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 26, 4:19 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote innews:1182818241.686843.18710@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 12:55?am, Matt Silberstein > > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:25:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > >> <1182813915.751042.294...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >On Jun 25, 11:42?pm, Matt Silberstein > >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:17 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > >> >> <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > >> >> <1182806297.891512.284...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> >> [snip] > > >> >> >The mechanism that emulated the brain would not behave the same > >> >> >(as the brain, I assume you mean). The mechanism (a computer > >> >> >program in your example) that emulated the brain would behave > >> >> >like a computer program. It would follow a sequence of CPU > >> >> >instructions that a programmer had written, and would modify data > >> >> >in the RAM. In no way is that the same as the behaviour of a > >> >> >brain. > > >> >> Really? Do you have sufficient understanding of how brains produce > >> >> thought to know that this is "in no way" the same? > > >>> Yes, indeed I do. My professional speciality is the understanding > >>> of hearing, applied to cochlear implants in humans. > > >> Wow, you do cochlear implant, you must know everything about > >> neurochemistry and neurology and such. > > > Yes, from your point of view I could probably give a very good > > impression of knowing everything about the large multi-disciplinary > > subjects that you mentioned, but in fact I only know sufficient to > > cover my own area of expertise thoroughly. > > >> I mean everything. So, given > >> you extensive knowledge, please tell us why specifically about > >> biological systems is so different from electro-mechanical systems. > >> Tell us what there is about hearing that is non-mechanistic and can't > >> be done by a made thing. > > > If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? > > Is sound a pattern of vibration in the air or is sound a perception > of a stimulus? > > <...> > > > > > > > > >> And you seem to counter that human thought is not materially > >> produced. > > > No nononononono!!! I must point out that I believe that human > > thought is produced by the laws of physics, and I am definitely not > > suggesting that any other mechanism (such as a soul, or a 5th > > dimension, or God) is necessary. If you have gained the opposite > > impression somehow from my postings, I expect that no matter how well > > I explained it, you would never understand how the behaviour of each > > of the Inner Hair Cells (IHCs) in the cochlea of a mammal ear is > > governed by the 3 Outer Hair Cells (OHCs), which vote to decide > > whether or not to activate their IHCs absorption of Potassium ions, > > which in turn eventually generates sufficient bioelectrical potential > > to send a signal along the auditory nerve to the auditory cortex, > > where the signal contributes to the conscious awareness of sound. > > Do we really need to get down to that level of detail for you to make > your point? If you're going for the reductionist view that the human > auditory apparatus is not the same as a computer sound input device, > well of course not. But once you get to the recognition algorithms, I > think that the distinction is rather harder to draw. > > > > > > > > >> >who wouldn't want > >> >it swamped by my explanations of conscious and subsconscious aspects > >> >of hearing, and how that differs from computer analysis of sound. > > >> I was not asking about computer analysis of sound, but that does have > >> some overlap with computer recognition of sound. > > > Computer analysis of sound is a pre-requisite to computer > > recognition. The computer analyses features of a sound and matches it > > with a list of stored sounds, using various numeric criteria for > > closeness of correspondence with previously stored sounds. The > > computer 'recognises' the new sound by indicating which stored sound > > matches best. > > Ah, now we're getting to my area. Of course what you've described is > only what I would call the "lexical phase" of analysis, converting > auditory input into symbolic form. Beyond that comes syntactic > and then semantic analysis to extact meaning. This is where I think > that a reductionist argument about the difference between the mechanics > of the ear and the computer processing of sound might begin to falter. > > <...> > > -- > Fred Stone > aa# 1369 > "If government half a century ago had provided us all with dinners and > breakfasts, it would be the practice of our orators today to assume the > impossibility of our providing for ourselves The author of this thread (titled The Implausibilty of Materialism) has kindly set up a new thread 'The James Norris Story of Sound' so that anyone wanting to discuss the difference between human conscious awareness of sound and computer analysis of sound can do so. If you want to argue with 'someone2' about whether or not computers or biological mechanisms have souls, you should continue posting your ideas to this thread. I expect your understanding of syntactic and semantic analysis of words will provide a useful input to the alt.atheism thread 'The James Norris Story of Sound' that 'someone2' has provided for us to discuss them in. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:58:09 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> in <1182830289.431036.318650@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jun 26, 3:54?am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote innews:1182812217.732849.12130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On Jun 25, 11:17?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> >> innews:1182800402.912119.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On Jun 25, 7:56?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> [...] >> >> > I hope you can understand from my postings, what consciousness is, >> >> > and how conscious awareness has evolved along with brains and the >> >> > associated sense organs, over billions of generations of continuous >> >> > evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule automatic reactions >> >> > to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, to our full-blown human >> >> > 'we understand everything' awareness of reality. You are unlikely >> >> > to find a better explanation than the one I have given, and if you >> >> > don't understand it at first, you should think about it >> >> > occasionally over a period of a few weeks. If you are reasonably >> >> > intelligent, you will then understand what consciousness is. >> >> >> OK, fine so far, but your explanation up to here doesn't say anything >> >> about why a computer cannot be conscious. >> >> > Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. They >> > are designed just to perform simple arithmetic/logical operations at >> > high speed, and there is no reason to expect them to be conscious. >> > They certainly haven't evolved any ability to be aware of and interact >> > with the environment so that they can exist, any more than a teaspoon >> > has, so why would they be any more conscious than a teaspoon? >> >> So what if computers haven't evolved? Comparing them to a teaspoon >> doesn't make their computational power equivalent to a teaspoon - it is >> equivalent to that of the neural networks that make up a brain. > >You seem to think that nature evolved the brain independently of the >rest of the body. If that were the case, there would probably not be >much difference between a computer neural network and a brain, as you >suggest. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I doubt Fred sees the brain and body as so separate. Perhaps you could explain your logic. >But in fact, as you probably know deep in your subconsious mind, the >brain evolved to bioelectrically trigger the heart about once per >second Actually the "brain" does not trigger the heart like that. The pacemaker is the heart itself. You might want to read up on this, it is rather fascinating. There is no global heart trigger, rather each muscle cell monitors the cells next to it and triggers then those cells hit a particular state. The triggers differ for each cell so the heart moves as one. If the trigger came from a point then the muscle would move in synch with the wave propagation. >so it provides blood to the brain and the rest of a biological >organism such as yourself. From nature's perspective, the brain is >less important than the penis and vagina. The Chinese Room and Turing >test immediately fail if you try to mate with the computer. How can the Turing Test fail? I am not sure what that even means? Nor do I have a clue what you mean by the Chinese Room failing. Nor does "mating" with a computer have anything to do with this discussion. >If you >can't tell the difference between a computer and a person, you are >similar to a zebra that thinks it's a horse. Well, Zebra's and horses are pretty close, is that your point? > From nature's point of >view, zebra and horse are different species and cannot procreate, in >the same way that a computer and a human cannot produce offspring. Which is a fantasy digression of yours. Let us know if you are interested in the previous topic. [snip] -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:07:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> in <1182820041.785636.139910@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jun 26, 1:56?am, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:37:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris wrote: >> >> >I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you >> >wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of >> >explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you >> >don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. >> >> Can you post anything relevant? >> >> >If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological >> >organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you >> >should start up a new thread as I suggested. >> >> No, I am interested in how biological entities do things that made >> things can't. That was your claim and that is what interests me. > >If you are genuinely interested in reading my explanation for why >biological organisms are consciously aware of sound, and computers >aren't, you should start up a new thread and we can discuss it >properly, as I suggested. Think up a sensible title and a few >intelligent and reasonable questions to start with, post it, and I'll >look out for it in the listings and reply. Your inability to defend anything is noted. Thanks for the heads up. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest DuhIdiot Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Jun 25, 11:58 pm, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > Evolution depends on the sexual transmission of genetic > characteristics via the DNA molecule Holy shit, how did I let Piece #8 slip by me?! Even not counting cell division in multicellulars, which does transmit genetic characteristics, I'd still think the vast majority of such transmission on Earth is either asexual or infectious. Asexuals and viruses don't evolve, Jim? Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:59:49 -0700, in alt.atheism , DuhIdiot <jmashburn@alltel.net> in <1182873589.988521.280380@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jun 25, 11:58 pm, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > >> Evolution depends on the sexual transmission of genetic >> characteristics via the DNA molecule > >Holy shit, how did I let Piece #8 slip by me?! > >Even not counting cell division in multicellulars, which does transmit >genetic characteristics, I'd still think the vast majority of such >transmission on Earth is either asexual or infectious. Asexuals and >viruses don't evolve, Jim? Missed that as well, good catch. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in news:1182830289.431036.318650@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 26, 3:54?am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> innews:1182812217.732849.12130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On Jun 25, 11:17?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> >> innews:1182800402.912119.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On Jun 25, 7:56?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote >> [...] >> >> > I hope you can understand from my postings, what consciousness >> >> > is, and how conscious awareness has evolved along with brains >> >> > and the associated sense organs, over billions of generations of >> >> > continuous evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule >> >> > automatic reactions to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, >> >> > to our full-blown human 'we understand everything' awareness of >> >> > reality. You are unlikely to find a better explanation than the >> >> > one I have given, and if you don't understand it at first, you >> >> > should think about it occasionally over a period of a few weeks. >> >> > If you are reasonably intelligent, you will then understand >> >> > what consciousness is. >> >> >> OK, fine so far, but your explanation up to here doesn't say >> >> anything about why a computer cannot be conscious. >> >> > Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. >> > They are designed just to perform simple arithmetic/logical >> > operations at high speed, and there is no reason to expect them to >> > be conscious. They certainly haven't evolved any ability to be >> > aware of and interact with the environment so that they can exist, >> > any more than a teaspoon has, so why would they be any more >> > conscious than a teaspoon? >> >> So what if computers haven't evolved? Comparing them to a teaspoon >> doesn't make their computational power equivalent to a teaspoon - it >> is equivalent to that of the neural networks that make up a brain. > > You seem to think that nature evolved the brain independently of the > rest of the body. Where did I say anything of the sort? I see that you're going to drag out a whole box full of strawmen to shoot down to prove that you're such a great debater. Do you carry that baggage around with you just so that you don't have to actually debate the points that people raise when you pretend to "discuss" things with them? > If that were the case, there would probably not be > much difference between a computer neural network and a brain, as you > suggest. > > But in fact, as you probably know deep in your subconsious mind, the > brain evolved to bioelectrically trigger the heart about once per > second so it provides blood to the brain and the rest of a biological > organism such as yourself. The brain evolved by doing a lot more than triggering the heartbeat. > From nature's perspective, the brain is > less important than the penis and vagina. The Chinese Room and Turing > test immediately fail if you try to mate with the computer. If you > can't tell the difference between a computer and a person, you are > similar to a zebra that thinks it's a horse. I'm beginning to wonder if you could pass the Turing Test yourself, Norris. > From nature's point of > view, zebra and horse are different species and cannot procreate, in > the same way that a computer and a human cannot produce offspring. > What an amazing non sequituur. I haven't suggested that computers evolved, and certainly not by sexual reproduction. > Evolution depends on the sexual transmission of genetic > characteristics via the DNA molecule (and even the Catholic Pope > agrees that Darwinism is 'more than a hypothesis'). It is possible > that conscious awareness of reality is less important, as a Darwinian > survival trait, than the solidity of an organism's cilia. So for > example. after a few thousand generations of human evolution from > today, humans awareness of reality might have been discarded by > nature, to be replaced by humans who mate with each other based only > on their hairstyles, and their ability to make conscious decisions > about reality would be irrelevant. > Well, I can imagine that you'll have managed to hallucinate yourself to be the "winner" of this debate and I won't have to bother to respond. >> > The notion of a >> > conscious robot is just the same ancient myth of golems and statues >> > brought to life, given an up-to-date gloss because of modern >> > technology. Anyone who imagines that computers might be conscious >> > doesn't really understand consciousness, or that computers are just >> > complicated machines, like a car or a television - it is almost >> > more likely that a galaxy might be conscious, or a forest or ocean, >> > but to me, that is also so unlikely that if it turned out to be >> > true, I'd consider changing my religious beliefs and start thinking >> > that perhaps God does exist after all. >> >> Ah, touch up your blatant assertion with a little arrogant well- >> poisoning about how anybody who disagrees with your arrogant >> presumptions just doesn't understand consciousness and you've got >> yourself > >>> a foolproof proof. Except that we're not fools. > > It is very easy for me to accept that we are not fools. I accept > (that is, I understand because of the evidence) that I am not a fool. That statement could only be made by a fool like you, James. > 'We' are not both fools because I am not a fool. You might or might > not be a fool - as I only have a few paragraphs of your writings to > make the decision on, I wouldn't immediately say 'you are a fool', > because you might just be pretending to be a fool. > > "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" > A. Pope > -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 On Jun 26, 2:32?pm, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:58:09 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > <1182830289.431036.318...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On Jun 26, 3:54?am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote innews:1182812217.732849.12130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On Jun 25, 11:17?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > >> >> innews:1182800402.912119.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> > On Jun 25, 7:56?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > >> [...] > >> >> > I hope you can understand from my postings, what consciousness is, > >> >> > and how conscious awareness has evolved along with brains and the > >> >> > associated sense organs, over billions of generations of continuous > >> >> > evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule automatic reactions > >> >> > to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, to our full-blown human > >> >> > 'we understand everything' awareness of reality. You are unlikely > >> >> > to find a better explanation than the one I have given, and if you > >> >> > don't understand it at first, you should think about it > >> >> > occasionally over a period of a few weeks. If you are reasonably > >> >> > intelligent, you will then understand what consciousness is. > > >> >> OK, fine so far, but your explanation up to here doesn't say anything > >> >> about why a computer cannot be conscious. > > >> > Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. They > >> > are designed just to perform simple arithmetic/logical operations at > >> > high speed, and there is no reason to expect them to be conscious. > >> > They certainly haven't evolved any ability to be aware of and interact > >> > with the environment so that they can exist, any more than a teaspoon > >> > has, so why would they be any more conscious than a teaspoon? > > >> So what if computers haven't evolved? Comparing them to a teaspoon > >> doesn't make their computational power equivalent to a teaspoon - it is > >> equivalent to that of the neural networks that make up a brain. > > >You seem to think that nature evolved the brain independently of the > >rest of the body. If that were the case, there would probably not be > >much difference between a computer neural network and a brain, as you > >suggest. > > I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I doubt Fred sees > the brain and body as so separate. Perhaps you could explain your > logic. The logic is that he thinks that a computer can be conscious because a brain can be conscious, but I'm pointing out that the brain did not evolve independently of the body. The 'computational power' of the brain (by which I guess he means the size of computer it would take to simulate all the activity in it), and the 'computational power' of the stomach etc are all part of the evolved organism. He wouldn't call a stomach conscious would he? Mind you, you shouldn't be posting on Freds behalf and claiming to know things about his thoughts. Don't you know what the phrase 'seems to think' means? It means that what he wrote suggests something which he might not have meant. > > >But in fact, as you probably know deep in your subconsious mind, the > >brain evolved to bioelectrically trigger the heart about once per > >second > > Actually the "brain" does not trigger the heart like that. The > pacemaker is the heart itself. You might want to read up on this, it > is rather fascinating. There is no global heart trigger, rather each > muscle cell monitors the cells next to it and triggers then those > cells hit a particular state. The triggers differ for each cell so the > heart moves as one. If the trigger came from a point then the muscle > would move in synch with the wave propagation. That's true - my old biology teacher should be shot for telling me stories about the brain triggering the heart! The brain occasionally speeds up or slows down the heart though, of course. > > >so it provides blood to the brain and the rest of a biological > >organism such as yourself. From nature's perspective, the brain is > >less important than the penis and vagina. The Chinese Room and Turing > >test immediately fail if you try to mate with the computer. > > How can the Turing Test fail? I am not sure what that even means? Nor > do I have a clue what you mean by the Chinese Room failing. Nor does > "mating" with a computer have anything to do with this discussion. Trouble is, you're replying to a posting I wrote to someone else, and you are greeting every single phrase in it with a 'Duh?' 'Eh what?' 'I don't get what that's got to do with anything', and you are a bit annoying. The Turing Test and Chinese Room test for intelligence/ consciousness are rubbish, because they are based on the idea that if you programmed a computer well enough nobody would be able to tell the difference between it and a person. But humans are not just brains which recite words - we mate with each other and have meals and live in houses - If you can't tell the difference between a computer and a person in bed, tough luck! > > >If you > >can't tell the difference between a computer and a person, you are > >similar to a zebra that thinks it's a horse. > > Well, Zebra's and horses are pretty close, is that your point? No the point is that zebras and horses look similar but are in fact genetically very far apart, and cannot mate. However, it doesn't really matter, it wasn't a very good point anyway. > > > From nature's point of > >view, zebra and horse are different species and cannot procreate, in > >the same way that a computer and a human cannot produce offspring. > > Which is a fantasy digression of yours. Let us know if you are > interested in the previous topic. Us. Who do you mean? Are you two people? Why would I let you (plural) know something about my interests? I shouldn't have mentioned the word 'penis' in a posting to a newsgroup - I should have known their would immediately be lots of silly giggling. > > [snip] > Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 On Jun 26, 2:33?pm, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:07:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris > <JimNorri...@aol.com> in > > > > > > <1182820041.785636.139...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote: > >On Jun 26, 1:56?am, Matt Silberstein > ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:37:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris wrote: > > >> >I'm more than happy to explain, but it really does look like you > >> >wouldn't understand the explanation. I could post lengthy amounts of > >> >explanation, but as you are the only person who has asked me, and you > >> >don't seem particularly interested, I'll just leave it. > > >> Can you post anything relevant? > > >> >If you want me to discuss the subject further (hearing in biological > >> >organisms, and how it differs from computer analysis of sound), you > >> >should start up a new thread as I suggested. > > >> No, I am interested in how biological entities do things that made > >> things can't. That was your claim and that is what interests me. > > >If you are genuinely interested in reading my explanation for why > >biological organisms are consciously aware of sound, and computers > >aren't, you should start up a new thread and we can discuss it > >properly, as I suggested. Think up a sensible title and a few > >intelligent and reasonable questions to start with, post it, and I'll > >look out for it in the listings and reply. > > Your inability to defend anything is noted. Thanks for the heads up. > > -- > Matt Silberstein Now that was your reply to my posting was it? Why did you bother writing it at all? You sometimes reply in a lengthy and confused manner to a response I made to someone else's message, and now you make a pointless and silly remark about my 'inability to defend anything' being noted? What's up with you? Something offended you in my letter did it? Sorry if I'm winding you up - I don't intend to - and you keep thinking I'm talking to you when I'm not so perhaps you find the whole 'newsgroup experience' confusing? Why not have a nice cup of tea or a lie down? Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 On Jun 26, 6:07?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote innews:1182830289.431036.318650@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 3:54?am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > >> innews:1182812217.732849.12130@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On Jun 25, 11:17?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > >> >> innews:1182800402.912119.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> > On Jun 25, 7:56?pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> >> James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote > >> [...] > >> >> > I hope you can understand from my postings, what consciousness > >> >> > is, and how conscious awareness has evolved along with brains > >> >> > and the associated sense organs, over billions of generations of > >> >> > continuous evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule > >> >> > automatic reactions to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, > >> >> > to our full-blown human 'we understand everything' awareness of > >> >> > reality. You are unlikely to find a better explanation than the > >> >> > one I have given, and if you don't understand it at first, you > >> >> > should think about it occasionally over a period of a few weeks. > >> >> > If you are reasonably intelligent, you will then understand > >> >> > what consciousness is. > > >> >> OK, fine so far, but your explanation up to here doesn't say > >> >> anything about why a computer cannot be conscious. > > >> > Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. > >> > They are designed just to perform simple arithmetic/logical > >> > operations at high speed, and there is no reason to expect them to > >> > be conscious. They certainly haven't evolved any ability to be > >> > aware of and interact with the environment so that they can exist, > >> > any more than a teaspoon has, so why would they be any more > >> > conscious than a teaspoon? > > >> So what if computers haven't evolved? Comparing them to a teaspoon > >> doesn't make their computational power equivalent to a teaspoon - it > >> is equivalent to that of the neural networks that make up a brain. > > > You seem to think that nature evolved the brain independently of the > > rest of the body. > > Where did I say anything of the sort? I see that you're going to drag > out a whole box full of strawmen to shoot down to prove that you're such > a great debater. Do you carry that baggage around with you just so that > you don't have to actually debate the points that people raise when you > pretend to "discuss" things with them? Don't be silly. I wrote 'you seem to think that ...', which means you didn't actually write it, but that is what your sentence implied to me. You could have misworded it perhaps - I was being polite. > > > If that were the case, there would probably not be > > much difference between a computer neural network and a brain, as you > > suggest. > > > But in fact, as you probably know deep in your subconsious mind, the > > brain evolved to bioelectrically trigger the heart about once per > > second so it provides blood to the brain and the rest of a biological > > organism such as yourself. > > The brain evolved by doing a lot more than triggering the heartbeat. > > > From nature's perspective, the brain is > > less important than the penis and vagina. The Chinese Room and Turing > > test immediately fail if you try to mate with the computer. If you > > can't tell the difference between a computer and a person, you are > > similar to a zebra that thinks it's a horse. > > I'm beginning to wonder if you could pass the Turing Test yourself, > Norris. Well I can't tell the difference between you and a computer, that's for sure. I'm glad we are on the same wavelength about the obvious and unsubtle artificiality of most of the postings to Usenet newsgreoups. > > > From nature's point of > > view, zebra and horse are different species and cannot procreate, in > > the same way that a computer and a human cannot produce offspring. > > What an amazing non sequituur. I haven't suggested that computers > evolved, and certainly not by sexual reproduction. > > > Evolution depends on the sexual transmission of genetic > > characteristics via the DNA molecule (and even the Catholic Pope > > agrees that Darwinism is 'more than a hypothesis'). It is possible > > that conscious awareness of reality is less important, as a Darwinian > > survival trait, than the solidity of an organism's cilia. So for > > example. after a few thousand generations of human evolution from > > today, humans awareness of reality might have been discarded by > > nature, to be replaced by humans who mate with each other based only > > on their hairstyles, and their ability to make conscious decisions > > about reality would be irrelevant. > > Well, I can imagine that you'll have managed to hallucinate yourself to > be the "winner" of this debate and I won't have to bother to respond. > > > > > > >> > The notion of a > >> > conscious robot is just the same ancient myth of golems and statues > >> > brought to life, given an up-to-date gloss because of modern > >> > technology. Anyone who imagines that computers might be conscious > >> > doesn't really understand consciousness, or that computers are just > >> > complicated machines, like a car or a television - it is almost > >> > more likely that a galaxy might be conscious, or a forest or ocean, > >> > but to me, that is also so unlikely that if it turned out to be > >> > true, I'd consider changing my religious beliefs and start thinking > >> > that perhaps God does exist after all. > > >> Ah, touch up your blatant assertion with a little arrogant well- > >> poisoning about how anybody who disagrees with your arrogant > >> presumptions just doesn't understand consciousness and you've got > >> yourself > > >>> a foolproof proof. Except that we're not fools. > > > It is very easy for me to accept that we are not fools. I accept > > (that is, I understand because of the evidence) that I am not a fool. > > That statement could only be made by a fool like you, James. > > > 'We' are not both fools because I am not a fool. You might or might > > not be a fool - as I only have a few paragraphs of your writings to > > make the decision on, I wouldn't immediately say 'you are a fool', > > because you might just be pretending to be a fool. > > > "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" > > A. Pope > > -- > Fred Stone What a boring 'person' you are. What stirred your boring brain to get out of its boring box and boringly write the rather dull and banal insults that you boringly posted with your boring and predictable phrasing and your boring boring boring ... Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 On Jun 25, 10:18?pm, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 8:42?pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > So if conceptually the biological mechanism was emulated with a > > > > different underlying (say an artificial neural network), it would > > > > behave the same but the biological one would be conscious, but the > > > > emulated one wouldn't be? Or would they both be? I think I've worked out where the fault lies in your logic - I'm referring to the lengthy debate you were having earlier in the thread about the mechanism M, its behaviour B(M) and property P and how you were basically just going round in circles with the other chap you were arguing with. You are very clear about your position that you don't believe that physical processes can give rise to consciousness. To you, such 'materialism' is 'implausible'. Presumably you agree that humans are conscious, so you must have some other explanation for consciousness - perhaps you believe in a 'soul', or that there is a 5th non-physical dimension which our 'minds' inhabit, or perhaps God kindly grants us the occasional notion of conscious awareness for some divine reason of his own. You are saying that there is no physical explanation for biological consciousness, and there is similarly no physical explanation for computer consciousness. You then want to argue that any explanation of biological consciousness must apply to computers, so that you can say to anyone who doesn't agree with you about the 'mind' that they must believe either that computers could also be conscious, or if not, their explanation for consciousness in animals doesn't work. But the standard explanation for consciousness which I gave, only applies to evolved biological organisms, and not to mechanical devices. You don't believe that explanation, so you ignore it and try to start up your argument again. However, to stop your circular reasoning, what about this. If you were to give your own explanation for consciousness, wouldn't that also apply to computers or televisions? Do television networks have souls? Why just humans and other animals (and possibly computers)? If you believe in the concept of a soul (some sort of non-physical 'mind' that exists alongside the physical workings of a mechanism), what are the (metaphysical?) rules about having one? Whatever your own explanation for consciousness in humans, why don't you think that plants or books or televisions are also conscious, with the same explanation? Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 27, 2007 Posted June 27, 2007 On Jun 25, 11:40?pm, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:33:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris wrote: > >The only conscious beings we know of are biologically evolved ones, > >such as ourselves. > > Does that mean no one such things are possible? > > >I hope you can understand from my postings, what > >consciousness is, and how conscious awareness has evolved along with > >brains and the associated sense organs, over billions of generations > >of continuous evolution, from tiny creatures with minuscule automatic > >reactions to light and dark, hot and cold, and so on, to our full- > >blown human 'we understand everything' awareness of reality. > > Well, I understand that you assert this. > > >You are > >unlikely to find a better explanation than the one I have given, > > Rather arrogant a claim. Do you think that _I Am a Strange Loop_ does > a better job? Or, at least, _Godel, Escher, Back_? No, I don't. Their self-indulgent and rambling books are not intended as a brief and correct explanation of consciousness. > > >and > >if you don't understand it at first, you should think about it > >occasionally over a period of a few weeks. If you are reasonably > >intelligent, you will then understand what consciousness is. > > Yes, it is as arrogant this time as the last one. > > >Computers, on the other hand, are not intended to be conscious. > > So? Are humans intended to be conscious? Not intended by the manufacturers, that is. Manufacturers assemble computers from components in the same way as TVs, and they haven't 'built-in' any form of consciousness at the manufacturing stage. > > >They > >are designed just to > >perform simple arithmetic/logical operations at high speed, and there > >is no reason to expect them to be conscious. They certainly haven't > >evolved any ability to be aware of and interact with the environment > >so that they can exist, any more than a teaspoon has, so why would > >they be any more conscious than a teaspoon? > > Are you seriously saying that computers don't interact with their > environment? No, I'm saying they don't react with the environment to exist. > > >You could pretend that a robot was conscious, by copying brain > >patterns from a human and arranging them in the computer 'memory', and > >then getting the robot to say 'I want food' whenever the memory > >corresponding to 'hunger' was accessed by the computer user. > > And this is different from humans how? Perhaps you should explain the > non-mechanistic aspects of humans that produce consciousness. It is different to a human because it is a doll. You can buy the dolls I describe in shops. The have computers in them that 'say' they want to eat etc. > > >You > >could plug the robot into electricity until it made a programmed > >'burping' sound, and possibly turn on a small tap to let out some > >smelly water at the same time, to make the effect more convincing. > >But that would clearly just be an expensive toy doll. It would be > >simpler to give the computer a wig made of human hair, and then talk > >about the computer's behaviour compared to a human, than to bother > >with computer simulation of patterns of biological neuronal activity, > >and pretending that it was aware. > > You should not try a reductio when you are this ignorant of the field. No, I am not ignorant of the field. I have worked as a professional exponent of Artificial Intelligence, designing and implementing products in development departments of companies, for many years. > > >The only conscious beings we know of are biologically evolved ones, > > And what we know is the limit of potential knowledge, right? And what > you know is the limit of human knowledge, right? If not, then this is > just an argument from ignorance. What's the matter with you? Do you know of any conscious beings that aren't biological? What are you arguing about? > > >and it may well be the case that biological creatures are the only > >conscious creatures that can exist. > > You have yet to explain what is non-mechanistic about biological > organisms. Why would I want to explain that biological organisms are non- mechanistic? I think they are mechanistic - you obviously haven't understood anything I wrote really have you? > > >The notion of a conscious robot > >is just the same ancient myth of golems and statues brought to life, > >given an up-to-date gloss because of modern technology. Anyone who > >imagines that computers might be conscious doesn't really understand > >that computers are just complicated machines, like a car or a > >television - it is almost more likely that a galaxy might be > >conscious, or a forest or ocean, but to me, that is also so unlikely > >that if it were true, I'd say perhaps God does exist after all. > > Right, the researchers in this field are all ignorant, it is a good > thing we have you around with your complete knowledge. The researchers in this field are not ignorant, I assure you. We know sufficient about AI to be able to reliably inform you that there is no way that a computer can be conscious, no matter how many programs there are in it, any more than could a typewriter. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.