What is the mind?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Tue Dec 15 18:11:49 EST 1998

Stanley Friesen [Contractor] wrote:
> In article <3675BA17.C5B77D42 at pop3.concentric.net>,
>  <kkollins at concentric.net> wrote:
> >A Realization of what you'd formerly "proposed" would have to be,
> >itself, at least as complex as the nervous system it was to "monitor",
> >and beyond this, complexity, it'd need to be able to acquire information
> >Experientially, and it'd have to Physically occupy the same 3-D space as
> >its "subject", if it were to "succeed".
> I am not convinced of this, as yet.

I stand on what I posted.

> >
> >There's a "far-cry" between "lie detectors" and the sort of "monitoring"
> >device which you "proposed".
> Yes there is.  And indeed I would not even base my system in the
> polygraph approach.  My concept starts from the current crop of neural
> activity imagers used by neurobiologists to elucidate the functioning
> of the brain.  The main limitation on current units of this sort is
> that they either lack sufficient time resolution or sufficient spatial
> resolution (or both) to isolate individual thoughts.  The second limitation
> is the lack of a full model mapping neural activity to thoughts.

The machines are wonderful, but for them to do what you say, in other
than with respect to Trivial Qs, such as, "Is he reading a nasty word?",
they'd have to occupy the same 3-D space as had the individual over the
individual's Life-"time"... since nervous systems' neural topology is
being altered continuously with respect to that which is experienced,
any machine that would "read thought" would not only have to be able to
do the same, it'd also have to occupy the same 3-D space be-cause that's
the only "place" in the Universe where the external 3-D energy
gradients, that Drive the nervous system of the individual whose "mind
is to be read", Exists... don't get the =Same= external 3-D energy
gradients, and even if the nervous system is "faithfully" recreated, the
"mind-reading machine" will go its own way, not the way of the
Individual's Thought.

It always Cracks-me-Up-Big-Time when I hear folks proposing that a
"cloned" human would think exactly like the "clone-ee"... such can't
happen be-cause of the same reasons discussed above. All this Stands

> >> [If it turns out to be impossible, it will be because of the shielding
> >> effect of the skull, not any intrinsic absurdity in the idea].

It's as I discussed above. I'll demonstrate if folks ever get over their

> Note this point.  In reality I suspect that sufficient resolution will
> be impossible without invasive monitoring, which sort of defeats the
> purpose.

Still won't work... the "invasive monitoring" would alter the neural
Topology, effectively Killing The Person, even if there seems to be "the
same "Life" in-there.

"Invasive" stuff is about as practical as sticking an Infant into an NMR
and forcing the Infant to "Exist" within the device over the
Individual's entire "Life"-"time"... it's all "just" Wild-Imagining on
the parts of folks who "just" don't give a damn about Physical Reality.
K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list