[Wittrs] Is Homeostasis the Answer? (Re: Variations in the Idea of Consciousness)
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:31:34 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> I think you reject this view because you are supposing something
> more is happening in the organic entity, something that isn't found
> on the theoretically possible machine.
We disagreed on what we mean by "mechanism", so presumably we disagree
on what we mean by "machine." It's not that "something more" is
happening. Rather, it is that something different is happening.
I see a mechanism as a system that follows rules by application of
brute causal force. If I throw a brick into the mechanism, either the
brick will be smashed to small parts, or the mechanism will jam up and
fail.
If I throw a brick into a stream, the stream keeps flowing. It just
goes around the brick. It adapts to changing circumstances in a "go
with the flow" kind of way. I see that kind of adaptive behavior as
very different from mechanistic behavior.
A computer is a sophisticated complex mechanism that can give a
mechanistic solution to very complex tasks. A biological organism is a
complex adaptive system that can do complex tasks adaptively and
without being based on causal rule following.
Sure, one can have a computer system that is pseudo-adaptive. It is
programmed to do many complex tasks and appears to be adaptive for the
circumstances for which it is programmed. But a true adaptive system
is not following any strict causal rule system, and can more readily
adapt to a wide variety of circumstances for which there was no
preprogramming.
The logic chip is, in some sense, an elemental mechanical system.
Similarly, the homeostatic process is an elemental adaptive system.
> Thus far it seems to me that those who, like Searle, insist on the
> first person picture over everything else simply have no real answer
> and make no attempt at a real answer.
I agree that Searle has no real answer, and no great interest in
finding one. He thinks that's the job of scientists. But it seems to
me that Dennett has no real answer either, though he thinks that he has
one.
> Hawkins view is that each neuron performs a fairly simple, repetitive
> algorithm but that when organized together in complex arrays, they
> work in unison to produce the complex pictures of the world that
> we actually get from the inputs we receive all the time.
I would suggest that a neuron is adaptive, rather than algorithmic.
That is, it is not actually following any rules.
> I would ask the same question: what are boundaries?
To a first approximation, a sharp transition in the signal received
when scanning crosses that boundary.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
