IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

machine brains

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 19 22:00:14 EST 1999

In article <36CD9028.8EE00400 at mich.com>, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com> wrote:

>Malcolm McMahon wrote:

>> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 04:01:32 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:

>> >> Self-awareness is the heart of conciousness.

>> >Yes. That is the central point.
>> >Without awareness there is no possibility of intelligence
>> >whatsoever.

>> Oh, I can't agree with that. Inteligent behaviour is no more than
>> reacting in a complex way to complex stimulae. It doesn't require any
>> kind of conscious awareness, it can be simply rule based. An inference
>> engine responds inteligently but I doubt many of us would use the word
>> "aware".

> ..because it's not, and it doesn't respond "intelligently" except in a
>very limited way. Yet each of us have the phenomenological experience of
>self awareness. The hands in front of me are "my" hands, and have a very
>privileged place in my perceptual space. Similarly for my entire body, and
>my mind, my memories and my feelings. Strict behaviorism errs is going
>from a questionable assumption- that only the directly observable is
>amenable to scientific analysis- to the doubtful conclusion that only the
>directly observable is real.

Yes. There is a world inside us, and the most exciting
thing is that the outer world is just there to accomodate
the inner, the very essense of the being.
The being, the inner, whatever you can lable it,
is at the center of the whole game of life.
This idea of "the outher is the only thing there is",
is simply uninteresing, at least at this junction.
It is too late for this grade of ideas to be infatuated
with. Now is the time for the real thing to come out.

> Yet we all have memory and experience, and it
>requires no reliance on untestable metaphysical entities.
>The notion that intelligence is merely behavior is an old one, and one
>that's had 80+ years to come up with a good model of human intelligence.
>While the behaviorist model has been very successful at modeling
>conditioned response to stimuli, it has been an abysmal failure at
>modeling or explaining things like language as behavior.

And that is a compliment.
Actually, that sucky model is the result of classifying
the heart as nothing, but a pump, and reducing the glory
of human body, filled with outmost intelligence on ANY
level you can find, to a mere collection of pipes, gears
and pumps, and there are quite specific reasons for this
deep conditioning.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net