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

machine brains

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Sun Feb 21 19:45:00 EST 1999


In article <36d1dde0.1303975 at news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm at pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:01:18 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:
>
>>In article <36cf7c25.791438 at news.demon.co.uk>, malcolm at pigsty.demon.co.uk
> (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>>>On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:03:46 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:

Ok, lets go though it quickly.
I don't have much time to spend today.
So, if something is not adressed, try to find
it other places.

If thread survives, may be we will address it in more detail
later.

>>>>>Indeed. But what makes you think that's a result of intelligence?

>>>>Ok, fine argument.
>>>>What do YOU think it is a result of?
>>>>Stupidity?
>>>>Randomness?
>>>>Inevitability?
>>>>Rat race of survival?
>>>>"Its a jungle out there", you know.

>>>>So you think this world is not an utter, unending
>>>>and unlimited intelligence?

>>>>What is it then?
>>>>And where did you get that idea?

>>>I think inteligence is merely one of the things we're aware of. Think of
>>>it as a series of concentric layers of increasing simplicity.

>>><outside>
>>>The external world
>>>The body
>>>The intellect
>>>consciousness
>>><center>

>>>Each layer interacting only with the ones to either side.

>>Well, this is as good of a model, as any other.
>>Except, even there you made a few fundamental mistakes.
>>First of all, your very structure is an ancient structure,
>>dated back at least 5000 years ago, just to put things
>>in perspective.

>Well, 4000 years at least. I haven't seen anything to suggest it's been
>improved on since except that science has given us some more insight
>into the nature of the individual components (though not yet
>consciousnesss),

>>And the way it goes is like this:

>>1. The body
>>[the matter, the "external" world, and all of it,
>>and that is your first mistake, distinguishing the body
>>from external world, as it is the same thing - a physical
>>domain]

>We're not playing that kind of game here.

Sorry, no games on my part here.

> This picture is wrapped
>arround an individual consciousness and to the consciousness the body
>_is_ a distinct thing and special thing.

Body is matter. External is the same thing.
Fundamentally, there is no distinction.
Yes, it does APPEAR to be different,
but you need to look a little deeper.
Just try to grasp the model first.
Then try to argue.
Not going to be that easy.

>>2. The mind [that, which can perceive the body]
>>You see, this is a very consistent and appropriate
>>model, with insight, levels of magnitude more in deapth,
>>than your monkey logic.
>>Now, in order to have 2. here what is the most fundamental
>>requirement?
>>Well, the most fundamental requirement is that it has
>>to be different from one, and in YOUR definition,
>>there is no even mentioning of intellect to be distinguishible
>>from the "external world", as you simply did not provide neither

>>Again, THE MIND can PERCEIVE the body.
>>[therefore, it is not the body]

>That's what I said.

>The mind is an information structure.

But you need to provide the basis for your disctinciton.
Merely enumerating objects there is no evidence.
How does one know that your distinciton between the
body and consciousness is valid?
On what basis.
You need to have a solid foundation for your distinctions.
Else it is a priest talk.
"There is the world, and there is god".
Well...
What do you want in this case? Money?

>>The hell will freeze over before you can disprove it.

Just try.

>>3. Consciousness [that, which can perceive the mind]
>>Again, the same rule applies.
>>If you can DETECT the mind, no matter via what means,
>>that implies that you are using the mechanism,
>>external to the mind.

>>That is consciousness.

>That's what I said.

And again, the same exact rule applies.
In order to make a distinction, you need to provide
proof of its validity.

>>4. Turia [that, which is beyond ALL description]
>>Nothing can be said about it.
>>And it does not imply that it does not exist.
>>Else, it would not even be in definition.
>>Yes, there IS something beyond the mind and
>>consciousness. Plenty of even scientific evidence
>>for it at this junction.
>>
>
>Let's have some then,

Huh?
You want to speak of unspeakable?
Well, you'd have to make a little more effort,t
then you have done to date.
And yet again,
the hell will freeze over much sooner, than you
can disprove its validity.

Just try.

> but I fail to see how science can be used in any
>useful way with respect to that which is beyond all description.

Yes it can.
I can mention a couple of things.
The has been a medical experiment where the doctor
asserted that there IS consciousness beyond the moment
of physical death. It was simply detected with equiptment.

You need to investigate this issue if you are interested
in it.

Secondly, there has been another interesting development
and we have brought it up a few times, but no follow up
was ever posted.

Experiment: A small part of the tissue from the heart
was placed under a microscope. It was still pulsating
at the rate of heart.
Then, they cut it in two pieceis and separated them.
They both started beating at slightly different rate.
Then, they moved these pieces together so they can
touch each other.
Do you know what happened?

Guess.

Well, they started beating at the same rate.
Can you even begin to comprehend what this implies?

Do you have a comment on it?

>>And lastly, your assertion of
>>"Each layer interacting only with the ones to either side",
>>is pure mental masturbation, as you will not be able to
>>prove it.

>So let's have some counter-examples. Various kinds of "psychic"
>phenomina might be counter examples where they to stand up and be
>counted.

There simply is not requirement to ONLY operate as you
described. There are so many examples of it,
it is hard to even begin.
Just do a little work on your part.


Ok, that is all for now.

------------------- end of input --------------------------

>>It is one dimensional view of reality,
>>or ALL THERE IS.

>No, it's a simple model of one part of reality, which doesn't pretend to
>be "all there is".

>>Existance is multi-dimensional and simultaneous.
>>You concepts of time are simply obscene.

>You've read them then? (I say nothing about time in this thread).

>>There is no restrictions of ANYTHING interacting
>>with ANYTHING. 

>If that were true then the whole unverse would be incomprehensible
>chaos. Limititations create the structures which allow us to exist.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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