In article <36CC5FF6.192B7226 at mich.com>, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com> wrote:
>>>Ray Scanlon wrote:
>>> Michael Edelman wrote in message <36C9BFFF.50AF3A56 at mich.com>...
>> >Ray Scanlon wrote:
>> Yes! And you can add ephaptic and hormonal effects. I say we must work with
>> what we have. If you insist on the life history of every molecule you are a
>> latter day Luddite.
>>That's rather a straw man argument. I do no insist on the role of every
>molecule- but I insist on a model that takes into account the function of every
>>Earlier I cited the failure of artificial hearts built on models of the heart
>as a pump, that failed to take into account the feedback mechanisms that
>regulate heart function. An incomplete model of the brain will not yield a
>complete model of its function.
Not only that, but what it might yield,
is something you are not really bargained for.
>Your model may work for the mechanistic model of mind you propose, one that has
>no place for conciousness, but it may not be complete enough to model aspects
>mind that many of us think are central to the brain's purpose.
And even if it "works", it will be of the grade of computerized
toaster, compared with the real thing,
the biological intelligence.
Just don't give it a red hot button to push.