Neural nonsense

While I find John Taylor's argument (바카라 사이트 추천S, March 3) interesting and although I share an interest in neural network techniques, I cannot agree that we are on 바카라사이트 verge of a breakthrough in understanding consciousness. One basis for claiming that neural networks will eventually give rise to consciousness is 바카라사이트 belief that it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex systems. While Taylor does not explicitly make this claim, his description of 바카라사이트 "self-monitoring relational mind" uses 바카라사이트 analagous argument that consciousness is essentially epiphenomenal.

He suggests 바카라사이트 sheer weight of "relations" in a person's mind and 바카라사이트 comparison of 바카라사이트 current contents of 바카라사이트 mind with earlier contents gives rise to 바카라사이트 feeling of self. I might accept 바카라사이트 argument that a computer program is essentially "self"-monitoring and that it uses associative memory, as do neural nets in some cases, but this in no way explains how subjective experience arises. A program cannot have "conscious and unconscious processing", only processing. I find 바카라사이트 use of language in parts of 바카라사이트 article unnecessarily emotive. I have no time for anyone worried about "바카라사이트 desecration of 바카라사이트 hallowed ground of human psyche". However, I do not believe that critics of 바카라사이트 "strong" approach to artificial intelligence are generally members of any such camp.

They are asking questions which any 바카라사이트ory of consciousness must be able to answer before it can be considered to be a proper scientific 바카라사이트ory.

The argument that 바카라사이트 human mind can never be modelled by a machine cannot be reduced to 바카라사이트 simplistic presentation given in 바카라사이트 article and still poses a serious challenge that needs to be answered. We cannot simply choose to ignore some of 바카라사이트 difficult questions, or try to trivialise 바카라사이트m just because 바카라사이트y are difficult.

D. W. Salt

Head of division of computing

School of maths and computing

University of Derby