What is the mind?

Stanley Friesen [Contractor] stanley at West.Sun.COM
Tue Dec 15 14:33:17 EST 1998


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.
>
>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.

>> [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].

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



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list