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

machine brains

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 19 22:27:44 EST 1999


In article <36CD92D9.16F2B716 at mich.com>, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ray Scanlon wrote:
>
>> ...Rather than purpose, say "function". The central function of the brain is
>> to
>> maintain homeostasis of the DNA in an unfriendly universe.

Not true, doc.
"Unfriendly universe" idea was created by parasites,
disguising themselves into the clothes of humble servants
of "good", "law" and "order". All horseshit of the lowest grade.

All corrupt to the laices on their shoes.

>> To this end it
>> seeks food and water and a safe resting place.

Can i ask you a little personal question, doc?
What are YOU looking for?
You know what i mean.
The clock is ticking,
the spring is not as strong, as it once was.

What now?
Would you share your experience?

Nothing, coming out of nothing, and going to nothing?

>> It avoids the predator

Same thing.
"Predators" are those, who created these ugly ideas
of fear and guilt.

Existance is not about "predators".
It is about joy and orgasm.

>> and,
>> in the interest of long term homeostasis, it seeks a mate.

Absurd.
DNA, in your model, posesses intelligence if it "seeks",
and it KNOWS to mate.
How?

So, is it true, according to you, that intelligence is
all pervasive on all the levels of biological life?

>> If these needs
>> are satisfied, the brain is idle.

You can't do that, doc.
Not an old dog like you.
This is purest of horseshit.

>The brain is *never* idle.

>> It's output, such as metaphysics or
>> mathematical demonstrations, are pretty but unneeded.

How do you know?
Are you god?
Do you know the ultimate purpose of ALL THERE IS?
[or ANYTHIG, for that matter]


>Yet they exist, and if they are uneeded, why would an organism directed towards
>homeostatis expend energy on unneeded activities?

Yup, it is amazing to see how easily their arguments collapse.
At the most it takes 3 steps.

> That would be the equivalent
>of an animal running in circles when it's not hunting or feeding.

The old doc of biology is simply testing out the waters.
He is not that dumb, by any means.
He just wants to see a reaction, most likely,
but he does not realize that he is digging his own grave,
and when he lies down in it, all he's going to have left,
is UTTER futility.

Why do you need to do that, doc?

>> In my opinion the purpose of the model is to show that a brain without a
>> soul (mind) is possible in a materialistic universe.

Then why can't you find a single example of it in nature?
Only here, in the circles of obscenity, the shit like this
flies.

Can you provide any evidence of your argument, whatsoever?

>> I think this will be
>> carried out in the first half of the next century.

Fuck it. What does it matter.
You are going to be gone by them.
The question is what do you do NOW.
Why do you bother about the future,
which belongs to your grandchildren on the first place?

>> When this project is
>> complete, man will say,

You have no way to determine that.
What man WILL say, is not to you to decide.
Secondly, again, it is utterly irrelevant.

>> "This is not enough, there is a spiritual universe
>> to consider".

Which you yourself reduced to a rubble of DNA ratrace,
it seems.

>> Man will turn to religion.

May be, may be not.
Religions to this date were nothing, but ugly crap,
preventing you from making a genuine progress,
claiming to assist you with.

>> My complaint is that you are premature by fifty years.

No need to complain.
Let him do his number.
What is YOUR "problem"?

Are YOU content?

>So you're actually a hard-edged dualist. You're looking to show that living
>organisms are all automotons, and only privileged ones- humans- may be
> inhabited
>by souls. Or so it seems.

Yep, very confused indeed.
On one hand there is a glimps of the beyond,
on the other hand, there is a reality of rat race
and parasitisim.

>> >That's silly. We're all self-aware. You aren't an automoton. Who am I
>> >debating
>> >with? What are dreams?
>>
>> If you were debating with a machine brain, such as Hal,

Hal is not a machine brain.
It is just a pile of shit,
meant to collect the money from the idiots,
running around, exclaiming hal, hal, hal.

>> how could you
>> possibly tell the difference? This is just Turing's Test.

And turing himself is dead, and the circumstances are quite
dramatic. The one, who discovered the genuine rule of intelligence,
going out like this?
Sounds a bit suspicious.

>You cite Turing's thought experiment as if it were some proof of intelligence.
>It's not.

NEVER been. Can not be.

> It's just an idea he came up with that defines intelligence
>operationally, which does fit in with your notion of brain. I would say that
> the
>"Turing test" only shows that a machines has fooled a human in a narrow
> context.

Well, on the first place, the machine does not even have such
a concept as "fooling the man".
We are way off the scale here.
The same thing like those monkey dudes proclaiming
that big sucking blue PLAYS the game better, than
the best human.
Only if big blue knew that, the ibm would not cancel
the whole sucking project.

Why did they cancel that project?
Any idea?

>And at the same time I would maintain that an intelligent, self-aware entity
> may
>not be able to pass the test.

Sure. Intelligence has all sorts of gradations.
The dancer is intelligent in his own ways.
There is a beauty and order in the movements,
there is total trust that the next movement will
arise, and it will be appropriate and as beautiful,
as others, which is an extremely complex problem
in itself.

Just observe how the words appear on the screen
while you type.

It is purest of magic, if you give it a little
awareness.
How do the words arise inside your scull and organize
into the ideas, and how do the fingers "know" how
to translate it into the letters?

Oh, sure, it is all just a stupid "training", right?
But how do the words arise, before you even KNOW
what you are going to say in the NEXT word?

Pure magic.

> Even two humans lacking a common language would
>fail each other by that measure. I would argue that the great apes are most
>probably self-aware, and there's certainly no common language there.

Not only great apes.

>> A dream is a
>> sequence of constellations that shows up under long term activation of the
>> reticular nucleus by the locus coeruleus.

Joke.

>That's like saying life is a continuous autocatylizing reaction,

Yep, you are just a byproduct of stupid chemical reactions
within your body. Utter slave of chemistry.
Obscenity of the purest grade.

> or that a car
>is a large metal device that turns hydrocarbons into heat and complex
> compounds.
>It descibes some aspects of intelligence without identifying what's important
>about those aspects. Why is it meaningful to have certain nuclei active?
> Suppose
>I say that language is a series of arbitrary symbols with production rules.
> Does
>that tell you what language actually is?
>
>> >You'll never explain brain without explaining mind. Can you describe the
>> >function of a computer in the absence of the existence of any software?
>>
>> A properly designed computer simply spins on a no-op sequence in the
>> micro-program, awaiting the arrival of an instruction. In earlier times
>> (prior to the middle fifties) there were no micro-programs. The computer, on
>> being powered up, simply stood by until an instruction was keyed in. This
>> can be embroidered but I think you get the point.
>
>Yes, but I think you're glossing over mine. Computers were designed with the
>idea that they would run programs. What is the meaning of a computer in a
>universe without a program?
>
>>
>>
>> Ray
>> Those interested in how the brain works might look at
>> www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html
>
>
>



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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