Modelling the human brain by modelling its evolutionary emergence

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 28 15:51:22 EST 2002


1 What is your definition of the notions 'mind' and 'scientific'?

GS: The term "scientific" was never at issue. That you ask "What is your
definition of..." shows a very, very typical misunderstanding. The "meaning"
of "mind" is no less than all of the ways it is used. So "my" definition
does not really matter. My position is that the "mind" is as worthless as
"ether" or "phlogiston."


2 Do I understand correctly that you see mind and brain as two completely
separate entities? Or is your opinion the other way around; what is then the
relationship between mind and brain?

GS: Basically, I am saying that there is no such thing as the mind.


3 You state that nothing is stored in the brain. What is your explanation
for remembering now what you did yesterday?

GS: The brain is changed by exposure to the environment. It does not follow
that anything has been stored.


"Frans van der Walle" <fw.novoware at wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:a5m33d$fqd$1 at reader08.wxs.nl...
>
> Glen M. Sizemore <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in berichtnieuws
> 3c7d691e$1_3 at news.teranews.com...
> > > Perhaps this quote illustrates exactly why little progress has been
> made.
> > > One thing it does not contain is any hint that the notions of "mind"
and
> > > "information handling processes" may be scientifically worthless.
> > ***********************
> > FvdW: I disagree; one only should define what one is talking about.
> >
> > GS: This is, indeed, the view that has been propagated in psychology and
> > psychology-related disciplines since the 1940s. It is also hopelessly
> naive.
> >
> > FvdW: My definitions are: * Mind is the functionality and stored memory
> > items, as implemented in the
> > physical brain structure.
> >
> > GS: There is nothing "stored" in the brain. This is another of the great
> > mis-conceptualizations afflicting behavioral neuroscience.
> >
> > FvdW: It can be called also: 'The Information System Man'.
> >
> > GS: Catchy, but really, really silly like virtually all of what you say.
> >
> > FvdW: * Brain is the physical object that 'houses' the mind.
> >
> > GS: Ummm, and why would this metaphor be useful? Does it actually
> accomplish
> > anything besides escaping the embarrassment of a frankly dualistic
> position?
> >
> > FvdW: * Information System is defined as the sum of all those
> > characteristics of
> > that species that can be represented by some repository of abstract and
> > conceptual
> > information items, that is reasonably isomorph in its characteristics to
> the
> > real life system.
> >
> > GS: You're joking, right?
> >
> > FvdW: * Information Handling is the set of information transfer-,
> storage-,
> > transformation-, input- and output operations within such an Information
> > System Once defined in this (or any other) way, you can use it and work
> with
> > it within a modelling environment.
> >
> > GS: Gibberish.
> >
> > FvdW: 'Scientifically' means 'well defined' & 'transformed via
> > logical rules'.
> >
> > GS: Whatever "scientific" means, this is not it. What is "transformed,"
> BTW?
> >
> > FvdW: Whether or not these notions are used in daily life in a less well
> > defined
> > or 'sloppy' way is irrelevant to the modeller. Language expressions are
> very
> > often not very
> > specific nor well defined. Misunderstandings occur often; humans can
> 'live'
> > with it because
> > they can use context information for a further narrowed down
> interpretation
> > of these
> > sloppy statements; models can not, as long as context information is not
> > part of a modelling.
> > Attaining that last stage is one of the goals of artificial intelligence
> and
> > in fact of my
> > research.
> >
> > GS: Gibberish....but to a great extent that is irrelevant to the point I
> > wanted to make in this NG. The original statement that I criticized
would
> be
> > more or less accepted by the majority of people who talk about the brain
> and
> > behavior, yet it is silly. So much for our chances of elucidating the
> > realtion between brain activity and behavior.
> *************************
> This discussion improves my knowledge of the english language. I have
looked
> up in Webster the word 'gibberish' and I found it to mean that I
> communicate, via email, in a  'rapid, inarticulate' way that is therefore
> not understood; it sounds like a 'confused gabble'. The notions 'naive'
and
> 'silly' were already known to me.
> My reply has to be short and clear then:
> 1    What is your definition of the notions 'mind' and 'scientific'?
> 2    Do I understand correctly that you see mind and brain as two
completely
> separate entities? Or is your opinion the other way around; what is then
the
> relationship between mind and brain?
> 3    You state that nothing is stored in the brain. What is your
explanation
> for remembering now what you did yesterday?
>
> Regards, I propose to use more friendly expressions in a friendly
scientific
> debate. Use of 'strong' words is not very convincing of your mastery of
the
> subject.
> Frans van der Walle
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list