What is the mind?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Tue Dec 15 22:25:27 EST 1998

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> > 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.

Note: Again, I'm discussing with respect to "normal", fully-functional,
nervous systems.

I'm =not= saying that there's no use for neural prostheses, as was in
the News (_ABC Evening News_) this evening with respect to a
rather-extreme instance of stroke, and which shows promise with respect
to such occurrences.

I =am= saying that, given a "normal", fully-functional, nervous system,
=all= non-natural "invasions", including pharmacological, can only
decrease the overall information-processing capacity of the system as a
=whole=. There might be an observable "enhancement" with respect to a
specific function, but look and see, there'll =always= be a larger
decrease in overall functionality.

"If it ain't brok, don't 'fix' it." ken collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list