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

machine brains

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Sun Feb 28 01:00:29 EST 1999


In article <Pine.WNT.3.95.990227122920.-81085F-100000 at cst105.york.ac.uk>, dmb106 <dmb106 at york.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Michael Edelman wrote:

>> > ..."Thinking" occurs in mammals. It is the interpolation of extra synaptic
>> > events between sensory input and motor output. ....) Don't waste time
> talking
>> > about our
>> > awareness of the brain's thoughts. That belongs to religion.

>> You're  defining the problem down to a much simpler, and much less
> interesting
>> one. Self-awareness is the heart of conciousness.

>> We all know we're self-aware, and there's no need to invoke metaphysics to
>> realize that humans and many other animals can plan- which is to say they can
>> create internal, counterfactual models in their mind and experiment with
> them.

>>  You seek to explain the brain as a robot with a strict mechanistic theory.
> But
>> if that's the case, who is writing this note?

>The robot is. You are nothing more that an intentional system. We
>ascribe beleifs and desires to you because that gives us most
>predictive power and understanding. Does that make the beleifs and
>desires we ascribe real? 
>        I agree that self-awareness is the heart of conciousness, but
>if this is the case ask your self one more question...
>What is the difference between being self aware and behaving as though
>you are self aware?

The difference between day and night.

>We all focus our thoughts and actions on our selves,

utter delusion

> it is the best
>thing to do in evolutionary terms.

Pure horseshit.
When you do it, you have no concern for this obscenity
of yours - evo-sucking-lution,
aka fatalistic materialism.

How do you define the best?
Defining one obscenity via referring to another
is the way to increase validity?

> The big difference 
>in humans is that we are aware we are aware.

Oh, really.
Then why are you asserting all this horseshit?
Dreaming about pussy in the sky with diamonds,
by any humble chance?

> Why is that such a leap
>of faith? - no irony intended. 

Can you see how you leap from one pile of horseshit
to another, forever looking for a way to increase the
validity of your argument,
that is essentially nothing but a pure obscenity.

>A rat is aware that a red light means food,

Ok, enough of this horseshit.

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

> for example, and it
>behaves in such a way so as to eat. We do not, however, ascribe any
>internal life to the rat. - if you do then just think of a lower
>organism which could be similarly conditioned. We humans have the
>added ability of being aware that we are aware that a light means
>food, in some bizare experiment. 

>It is my beleif that this infinate regress is what we call awareness.
>The fact that it is an infinate regress is not key, it just makes it
>intractable.  Just think about what it is like to be aware of
>somthing? i.e. aware that it is daytime, I dont think you have to be
>concious to do this. Then extend the idea and become aware that you
>are aware- why would you need to be concious at the next step? yet the
>effect of all this unconcious computing is what we call conciousness. 

>Dan.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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