What is the mind?

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Tue Dec 15 20:35:41 EST 1998

In article <3676EC25.995C1801 at pop3.concentric.net>, kkollins at concentric.net wrote:
>Stanley Friesen [Contractor] wrote:
>> In article <3675BA17.C5B77D42 at pop3.concentric.net>,
>>  <kkollins at concentric.net> wrote:


>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

Well, these woodoo artificial intelligenciaks here go as far,
as to assert that full blown intelligence, equivalent to human,
or even better, is possible in a machine.

Man, that blows.

And they have no clue whatsoever what intelligence is beyond
some stupid purely mechanical manipulations. Like flip some
switches, trigger some bits, and uuuhhhaaaa!
you got yerself some REAL intelligence!


And yet they use the monkey logic to conclude that.

Time to kick their plastic bio-robotic ass a long time now.

>> >> [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].

Sure, blame on "shielding" effect, even if you suck worse than
a black hole.

>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.

Resolution of what on the first place?
You want to be able to cut one sentence from another
in a neural structure?
One idea from another?

Good luck.

Not even clear you'll be able to recreate the elefant
fart in the most general sense.

At the best, you can create an equivalent of converting
a sound to color. Dig up the research. They tried to do it
for at least 40 years now.
And the results?

- Still the same: you suck.

>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.

They don't even have a clue what exactly they are trying
to extract from where and for what?

You want to untranslate the mechanism of the brain,
which is the most perfect abstractor there is?

And then?

>"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

Man, these dudes are really scary being programmed by the
fat cat to the point where the only thing they can even
BEGIN to imagine, is a purely stupid machine with the most
idiotic functions, like move/stop, forward/backward,
red/yellow/white/black, sound/no sound, true/false,

If this is not a stone age of the study of intelligence,
consciousness, awareness and the very essense of life,
then what is?

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list