Are you familiar with Searle’s “Chinese Room”[1] thought experiment? The concept you describe is almost identical to several of the variations on that hypothetical scenario that came up in the prominent discussions of Searle’s paper when it was published—and is disposed of in the same way as those were. I refer you to the relevant section of Daniel Dennett & Douglas Hofstadter’s book, The Mind’s I (or, for a quicker read, to this old Slate Star Codex comment thread, which briefly covers a part of what Dennett & Hofstadter say).
One relevant matter brought up in the aforementioned discussions is that of scale. The Wikipedia article “List of animals by number of neurons” may be instructive, here.
The current population of the United States is about 327 million. Of the animals listed in that Wikipedia article, the one with closest to that number of neurons is the common parakeet. So, if we imagine every single person in America (including babies, etc.) being organized in such a way as to give rise to a mind-like structure (connectome), then it would seem that the resulting mind would be about as “smart” or “conscious” as a parakeet. Not very impressive! But, of course, neurons fire at about 200 Hz, and humans can’t really do anything that quickly, much less make cell phone calls and follow instructions or what have you—so it would be more like a very, very slow parakeet.
But of course that’s quite silly. In reality, the organizational structures composed of humans are too loosely connected, and not connected in anything like the right ways, and not cohesive enough, and not made up of enough parts, etc., to be plausibly mind-like. So I think my answer to the question—“What levels of organization in humans, if any, are mind-like?”—has to be “none of them”.
[1] What is it with using China and Chinese as examples of these things??
Here, for anyone not already familiar with it (and maybe some who are), is Searle’s original article along with commentary from a bunch of smart people and then Searle’s response to their comments. (The article was published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, which for each article solicits such commentary and then publishes them together.) The commenters include Daniel Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Douglas Hofstadter, Benjamin Libet, Marvin Minsky, Richard Rorty, and Roger Schank; it’s quite a star-studded list.
I think the reason for using Chinese is not so much that it has a reputation for being “mechanical and analytic” as Evan suggests, as that it has a reputation for being exceptionally incomprehensible to those who don’t know it, including in particular John Searle. He wanted a language for which the scenario he described would make it clearly impossible for him to have any inkling what the symbols he was pushing around mean.
Are you familiar with Searle’s “Chinese Room”[1] thought experiment?
Yes. As I believe the provided link makes clear, the China Brain is related both historically and obviously conceptually to the Chinese Room.
So, if we imagine every single person in America (including babies, etc.) being organized in such a way as to give rise to a mind-like structure (connectome), then it would seem that the resulting mind would be about as “smart” or “conscious” as a parakeet. Not very impressive!
On the contrary, this is incredibly impressive. Regardless, the point still stands: even a parakeet mind slowed down by millions of times is still, in some sense, a parakeet mind. I actually address the numerical point specifically, but to restate it, I believe humans are capable of simulating 100 or more neurons at once.
But of course that’s quite silly. In reality, the organizational structures composed of humans are too loosely connected, and not connected in anything like the right ways, and not cohesive enough, and not made up of enough parts, etc., to be plausibly mind-like
Well, I do agree that America is not even as sentient as a comparatively simple animal (for the exact reasons you mentioned), however I believe that there are a sufficient number of properties (complex but relatively consistent connections, self-reference and modification, etc.) that it shares in common with minds that deserves at least the label of mind-like.
[1] What is it with using China and Chinese as examples of these things??
Well the Chinese Room presumably uses the written Chinese language because it has a reputation for being mechanical and analytic. (This is really only little bit true in my experience, 可是我的中文很不好 so don’t ask me).
For the China Brain, it is probably due to China’s large population, as well as a play on the Chinese Room.
Are you familiar with Searle’s “Chinese Room”[1] thought experiment? The concept you describe is almost identical to several of the variations on that hypothetical scenario that came up in the prominent discussions of Searle’s paper when it was published—and is disposed of in the same way as those were. I refer you to the relevant section of Daniel Dennett & Douglas Hofstadter’s book, The Mind’s I (or, for a quicker read, to this old Slate Star Codex comment thread, which briefly covers a part of what Dennett & Hofstadter say).
One relevant matter brought up in the aforementioned discussions is that of scale. The Wikipedia article “List of animals by number of neurons” may be instructive, here. The current population of the United States is about 327 million. Of the animals listed in that Wikipedia article, the one with closest to that number of neurons is the common parakeet. So, if we imagine every single person in America (including babies, etc.) being organized in such a way as to give rise to a mind-like structure (connectome), then it would seem that the resulting mind would be about as “smart” or “conscious” as a parakeet. Not very impressive! But, of course, neurons fire at about 200 Hz, and humans can’t really do anything that quickly, much less make cell phone calls and follow instructions or what have you—so it would be more like a very, very slow parakeet.
But of course that’s quite silly. In reality, the organizational structures composed of humans are too loosely connected, and not connected in anything like the right ways, and not cohesive enough, and not made up of enough parts, etc., to be plausibly mind-like. So I think my answer to the question—“What levels of organization in humans, if any, are mind-like?”—has to be “none of them”.
[1] What is it with using China and Chinese as examples of these things??
Here, for anyone not already familiar with it (and maybe some who are), is Searle’s original article along with commentary from a bunch of smart people and then Searle’s response to their comments. (The article was published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, which for each article solicits such commentary and then publishes them together.) The commenters include Daniel Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Douglas Hofstadter, Benjamin Libet, Marvin Minsky, Richard Rorty, and Roger Schank; it’s quite a star-studded list.
I think the reason for using Chinese is not so much that it has a reputation for being “mechanical and analytic” as Evan suggests, as that it has a reputation for being exceptionally incomprehensible to those who don’t know it, including in particular John Searle. He wanted a language for which the scenario he described would make it clearly impossible for him to have any inkling what the symbols he was pushing around mean.
Yes. As I believe the provided link makes clear, the China Brain is related both historically and obviously conceptually to the Chinese Room.
On the contrary, this is incredibly impressive. Regardless, the point still stands: even a parakeet mind slowed down by millions of times is still, in some sense, a parakeet mind. I actually address the numerical point specifically, but to restate it, I believe humans are capable of simulating 100 or more neurons at once.
Well, I do agree that America is not even as sentient as a comparatively simple animal (for the exact reasons you mentioned), however I believe that there are a sufficient number of properties (complex but relatively consistent connections, self-reference and modification, etc.) that it shares in common with minds that deserves at least the label of mind-like.
Well the Chinese Room presumably uses the written Chinese language because it has a reputation for being mechanical and analytic. (This is really only little bit true in my experience, 可是我的中文很不好 so don’t ask me).
For the China Brain, it is probably due to China’s large population, as well as a play on the Chinese Room.