Addressing criticism for my “Humans are metal robots in a valid sense” story:



I made no claim that an electronic transister experiences sensations. Going back to Peter Tse, neurons are coincidence detectors. Neurons detect information as coincidence patterns. The bit of the mind is a coincidence.

A bit of information is the basic unit of data https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit

The neural network builds concepts like an artificial neural network but one that is more evolved (by the age of life on this planet.) Perception is a rendered concept. Rendered by the brain to other parts of the brain in a fractal of feedback loops. This part is a reference to deepdream https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepDream

I understand that neurotransmitters flow between chemical synapses. I am arguing that they cause a change in the placement of charged ions which affects when and where neurons will fire.

Note: Calcium, potassium, and sodium ions are metals regardless of whether they are dissolved in aqueous cations. Look at a periodic table to see for yourself.

Note: I never said it was a simple as a neuron firing or not firing. I said coincidence detection was the basis of a bit, but there is a lot of computation that can happen below the threshold of a neuron firing.

Note: See the article I linked in the original article I referenced where they show how the brain processes information in discreet steps. Relevent to a comment someone made that [time isn’t digital in the brain]. Someone said [Sampling frequency will change the bitstream] I agree: Exhibit psychedelic medication research and deepdream.


This revision came about because of a post on social media where I said:

“I say that there is nothing that we can teach people that machines cannot also learn. You may ask why do I think machines can learn everything that humanity holds dear including feelings and art? It’s simple really, all knowledge, feelings, emotions, insights and intuitions can be broken down into tempo-spatial patterns that can processed by a brain and thus by a computer.”

I was also asked if I was a Functionalist I said

“I’m not a Functionalist exactly but close. The state of knowledge is going be directly related to its function. The parameters of the frequency and spatial mapping of information in a mind are going to effect the functionality of it, and that includes the internal functions of internal representations.”

and

“the difference is that I believe that a certain class of substrate is required to achieve a certain kind of mind, like the human mind, but that class of substrate could be made out of different materials, so I’m not believing that the functionality of the human mind can be achieved without a certain class of substrate that accomplishes certain objectives.”

Someone mention a Max Tegmark paper from 2014 https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219 and I replied

“I know that paper, I call it special sauce theory, and I side with folks like Jeff Hawkins who think there is no special sauce, no magical “emergence” phenomena (like gas turning to water) ha. Nothing special that hasn’t been detected already. Maybe later on this author will point to electromagnetism in the brain and then say there it is but I think the problem is that information doesn’t have any meaning in it without a decoder to decode that information, otherwise it’s just a bumps on a record player.”

Someone asked if I would try to reduce life to its components such as ones and zeros or particles.

I replied “whether life can be described with one’s and zeros or with particles is just one view point out of many, that one view point would not be the whole story of life, just a small part of the story”

and

“I think from a valid point of view feelings are just patterns in space and time, the pattern could be analyzed and someday replicated in a machine that attempts to mimick the functions of biology. At the same time, I think I can appreciate that some people don’t need those extra details, and the feelings alone are what matters to them.”

Source: Deep Learning on Medium