Grey replied 14 years ago (Oct 18th 2009, 6:05:04 am)
Somehow my message on page 2 got overlooked....
The way I read the argument
1. Either you don't believe that anyone can program software that has a phenomenal nature, because the Phenomenality, involves some Psychic aspect that won't transfer over to silicon via a program. A valid belief, but only a belief because you haven't defined that psychic something except by its effect... ie. Phenomenalism, but somehow it is verbotten to try like it is verbotten to explain F=M*A, which is something that Physicists would be puzzled to find blocking them.
2. Or, you believe that it is possible with a good enough model, to capture, any function of the brain, even those functions formerly thought to be psychic, either by replacing neurons with silicon, which while possible would require a silicon equivalent to a neuron that we don't have yet, or by figuring out how the brain actually works, and building an analog, or emulation/simulation of it. (Emulation if we want to have an exact analog that acts with all the right signals, and Simulation if we are willing just to have a model that "Works Alike".
I realized these two basic camps existed back when I was very young, and realized that the basic test for solving the problem was to let the silicon mages, loose to do their worst. At least that way we would know where the brain and mind models were different, and therefore what psychic part was missing, if only by elimination. Are you really sure that it would be phenomenalism that was missing, or are you just buying the majority view?
Since then I have realized, that mostly this argument is a paper tiger,
dependent on the idea that we are going to program a computer system to replace the brain. The computer system we use, will probably either include a Virtual Machine that works differently from the standard software, and thus eliminates any demand that software works only one way, and/or has completely different circuits that work using a completely different architectural approach, which is what I personally am working on.
Don't worry it will still be implemented in silicon, although I am currently trending towards a hybrid digital/frequency based circuit and away from strict adherence to Digital architectures.
Have I defined a direct replacement for the neuron in silicon?
Well no, I had no need to. All we are really interested in modeling is the data processing regime in the brain, and that is mostly related to signals that pass through the brain. So all I modeled was the signal regime of the neuron. Further because transistors work in a completely different manner than neurons, implementing a transistor based element meant I had to understand what the neurons were doing in groups of different types of neurons, and implement THAT function instead of the neuron function.
By doing this interpretation, I have clearly moved away from an Emulation, towards a simulation. The guys that are doing the emulations are tying up hours and hours of large computer time, down in CERN, and have big buck supporters, I am a welfare bum, working alone as yet, and can't afford more than about $5.00 at any one point to invest in my work, (Which is partly why people keep claiming I am arm waving)
So let us talk about my first circuit. Does it deal with the requirements of Phenomenalism? Well No, But it does group data together into a Data-Cloud when scaled up to arrays. I have long since been informed that I can't call the Data-Cloud concept a Quale, because it doesn't fit the Phenomenalist mind set of what a Quale is supposed to be.
However the nature of the data cloud is that it tends to cluster elements from all over the brain into "Functional Clusters" if only by linking them to a frequency tag so that the data can be filtered. It is this frequency tagging that makes my first circuit a hybrid digital/frequency circuit.
Am I arm waving, or just really bad at transferring my highly abstract thoughts, into English so that other people can understand them... Experience seems to suggest the latter effect, I have written 5 books that no one else can read.