Subj : Re: Neuralink
To   : Underminer
From : Dennisk
Date : Wed Aug 19 2020 22:26:00

-=> Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-

 Un>   Re: Re: Neuralink
 Un>   By: Dennisk to Underminer on Tue Aug 18 2020 09:05 pm

 De> No, we are not essentially computers. You won't find in our brand and
 De> gates, or gates, flip-flops, microcode. Our memory works completely

 Un> You're worrying about levels of sophistication and architecture. My
 Un> point is that we do operate on a pretty binary level. You even expect
 Un> it from other people in your interactions in being able to predict
 Un> reactions. If you get a different response you chalk that up to the
 Un> environmental circumstances or differing past experience. The
 Un> underlying point is the same: it's a series of chemical and electrical
 Un> interactions. We can expect that with a given set of inputs, we'll get
 Un> a given set of outputs every time. The fact we can't predict exactly
 Un> which inputs map to which outputs is just a matter of complexity.
 Un> That's why there's thought even as far as that the experience
 Un> consciousness may be more of an emergent phenomenom. ---
 Un> Underminer

There is some conjecture that perhaps there are some quantum effects within the
neurons, which may result in the same inputs not resulting in the same outputs.
 I think this is a possibility, as it may be an evolutionary advantage for a
mind to be able to run through a particular 'circuit', but come up with new
paths faster.  It's only a guess at this point, but I did once think that this
might explain why our brains are conscious.

I do agree that people are pretty predictable, at a broad level.  In fact, the
older I get, the more predictable people get, almost to the point I wonder
whether people have minds of their own, or really are following scripts.

.... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52

.