3 ms·
Yeah, I didn't really understand the "physics" requirement as well. Sure if you're measuring the integrated information of the hardware architecture it'll be qu
by KhoomeiK 6y ago
Yeah, I didn't really understand the "physics" requirement as well. Sure if you're measuring the integrated information of the hardware architecture it'll be quite low, but why isn't the integrated information of the abstracted neural simulation software (which is presumably significantly higher) relevant?
- stubish 6y agoEspecially when the "physics" is the same. My brain is built from the same "physics" as the computer chip. We know complex systems are built on simple systems. Koch is claiming that highly connected systems cannot be built from less connected systems?
- mannykannot 6y agoKoch does not even seem to be consistent with hardware. A synapse is sufficiently complex, yet a transistor is not? He seems to be offering a peculiar panpsychism in which almost everything, except transistors, has the potential for consciousness. It seems to be a remarkably tendentious view.
- mannykannot 6y ago...and thinking about this some more, one does not, of course, need transistors to make a Turing-equivalent machine - one could, in principle, use neurons and synapses... or people. Koch's position, at least as he has presented it in this interview, seems utterly incoherent.
- hackinthebochs 6y agoAgreed. "Integrated information" is intrinsically substance independent. Yet for some reason he doesn't grasp the obvious fact that a Turing machine running the right program would exhibit the same level of integrated information. His argument seems to require an extra ingredient to exclude programs running on computers but it goes unstated. I have yet to see something that resolves the obvious incoherence.