machine brains

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 22 23:19:10 EST 1999


In article <36D16A4F.34C284CC at mich.com>, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ray Scanlon wrote:
>
>> l'.
>>
>> Soul (mind) belongs to religion. I would say that most biologists think of a
>> molecule as a deterministic structure of atoms, Molecules make a neuron,
>> neurons make a nervous system. May we think of the brain as a deterministic
>> structure? Why not?
>
>Most scientists believe in a deterministic universe, yet most scientists also
>believe in free will? Is this a contradiction? I don't think so.
>
>Roger Penrose argues that mind is not Turing computable. I'm not sure I buy
>this, but it's one way out of the conundrum.
>
>And I still of course reject your equating mind with soul. By dragging in a
> term
>from theology you attempt to define mind as something only meaningful in a
>theological context.

Yep, mind is just a machine, sophisticated indeed,
and yet it is just the most outer layer of your essense.

>But the common understanding of mind requires no theological elements-

Yup, none.
All explainable, as long, as you deal with mind.
No matter what kind of bullshit they programmed into it,
no matter what kind of self image you might have at the end,
it is all quite computable.

But, even in that domain, your artificial obscenity will
fail, as there are aspects to even mind, that are on
the boundary of unlimited.
Only the most rudimentary aspects you can lay your fingers on.

> whereas
>your behaviorist conception requires us to reject a common phenomenological
>experience. I think your view has more theological baggage attached to it, as
> it
>requires us to reject the common experience of self-awareness as nonexitent.

And that is the very root of your being.
Without awareness, there is not a SLIGHTEST chance
for intelligence, as it is the very aspect that
allows one to even observe the whole jazz.

>Defining away mind requires more assumptions.
>
>The original motivation for the purely behaviorist stance was Positivism, which
>stated simply that the only meaningful statements one could make were those
>about the observable world.

Which is utter illusion, arising of complete ignorance
of the very essence of ones own being.

> Surprisingly it took some years before someone
> noted
>that the central tenet of Positivism was not, by its own definition, a
>meaningful statement.

Yep, all these "meanings" are still on mechanical level,
at the very best.

>> The wiring, as set up by the DNA, follows a different plan. But if you are
>> familiar with digital circuitry at the gate level it is possible to get some
>> carry over. Of particular use is a good knowledge of the interplay between
>> positive and negative logic. Neurons elsewhere activate neurons in the
>> reticular nucleus of the thalamus. These, in turn. inhibit neurons in the
>> thalamus, thus halting the flow of signal energy on its way to the neocortex
>> and also halting motor programs form the basal ganglia and the cerebellum on
>> their way to the motor and pre-motor cortex. The relationship between
>> activation and inhibition on the one hand and positive and negative logic on
>> the other and is fruitful.
>
>But it still tells you nothing about meaning.

None, whatsoever.
They completely gave up on the very notion of it.

> You may argue that meaning is a
>fiction,

And that is ALL they do here all their life,
denying themselves their own validity.

What a fatalism. Only if they could ever comprehend that.

> and functional relationships are the only real description of a
> system.

SYSTEM, not life, not even human, as an element of it.

>But that takes us back to our central issue of whether mind itself is
>meaningful.

And here we go again.
What is mind based on?
[but pure belief system,
which throws you back to religion
from the very start].

And those beliefs are on the border of obscenity.
They even talk about some stupid turing test,
having ANYTHING to do with intelligence.

But what is intelligence?
We've been trying to ask it for how many months now?

>> The word "mind" is only a euphemism for "soul". It is for the use of people
>> who are too nice to say "soul" in mixed company. One may investigate
>> alertness through experiment. Awareness is for religion.
>
>That appears to be your only argument against the existence of mind- correct me
>if I'm wrong. But since we all have the *experience* of mind and
> self-awareness,

Self awareness you don't.
Else you would not say it.
One thing is certain.

I wouldn't just cut it from the shoulder,
cause you are cutting off your own balls.

>how can you say it doesn't exist?




More information about the Bioforum mailing list