4 ms·

From the abstract: "Since lossy integration would necessitate continuous damage to existing memories, we propose it is more natural to frame consciousness as a

From the abstract: "Since lossy integration would necessitate continuous damage to existing memories, we propose it is more natural to frame consciousness as a lossless integrative process and provide a formalization of this idea using algorithmic information theory. We prove that complete lossless integration requires noncomputable functions. This result implies that if unitary consciousness exists, it cannot be modelled computationally." Seems to be setting up a straw man only to knock it down. Does anyone believe the brain losslessly integrates information? If not, the conclusion doesn't seem to apply.

DannyBee 12y ago
They do, for even stranger reasons: " In particular, memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay". To paraphrase babbage, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement." Being lossy does not imply reading is lossy, it could be that writing destroys old information.
- yongjik 12y ago
  How funny, retrieving memory in human brains do expose them to potential decay or alteration. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/20/when-memories-are-remembered-they-can-be-rewritten/ http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/20/when-memo... > Every time we bring back an old memory, we run the risk of changing it. It’s more like opening a document on a computer – the old information enters a surprisingly vulnerable state when it can be edited, overwritten, or even deleted. It takes a while for the memory to become strengthened anew, through a process called reconsolidation. Memories aren’t just written once, but every time we remember them.
thret 12y ago
The wording is confusing, but I thought perhaps they were assuming that an artificial brain would indeed be lossless and therefore could not be modeled computationally.

DannyBee 12y ago

They do, for even stranger reasons: " In particular, memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay". To paraphrase babbage, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement." Being lossy does not imply reading is lossy, it could be that writing destroys old information.

yongjik 12y ago
How funny, retrieving memory in human brains do expose them to potential decay or alteration. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/20/when-memories-are-remembered-they-can-be-rewritten/ http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/20/when-memo... > Every time we bring back an old memory, we run the risk of changing it. It’s more like opening a document on a computer – the old information enters a surprisingly vulnerable state when it can be edited, overwritten, or even deleted. It takes a while for the memory to become strengthened anew, through a process called reconsolidation. Memories aren’t just written once, but every time we remember them.

thret 12y ago

The wording is confusing, but I thought perhaps they were assuming that an artificial brain would indeed be lossless and therefore could not be modeled computationally.