= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CellBioGuy comments on AI origin question - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (18)
If there a machine that determine that a person thinks of a red fire truck and then stimulates the neurons in the brain of another person, that's not direct. The machine is in the middle.
The machine needs an internal language in which it can model "red fire truck", be able to recognize that in Alice by looking at neuron firing pattern and then have a model of what neuron firing would likely to have the effect of something like a "red fire truck" be perceived by another person.
Given those translation issues of those two changes of represenation systems I don't see why I would call the process "direct".
To be fair you could also imagine a setup without such internal interpretation, with just signal X in electrode 1 causing signal X to be disgorged in electrode 2. It would then be up to the brains on either end to learn how to modulate/interpret this new channel. People can and do learn to use such new channels all the time whenever they are provided.
I think that's still substantially about learning a new language in which to communicate and not just transmitting existing thoughts as is.