Cerebral Downloading?? <collins>
johnh at faraway.xxx
Wed Jan 1 10:11:25 EST 2003
And how many times have we heard this century that the physicists will come
up with a Theory of Everything? Michelson, 1901, the end of physics is near.
Max Born 1928: the end is near again. Hawking, 1990s, we can say with
cautious optimism that the end of physics is near. Now we find light speed
can vary, recent expts have cast serious doubt on the higgs boson
hypothesis, and after superstrings we now have 'brane theory'.
It's easy to say 'anything is possible' and is often said by those who don't
understand the damning complexities. If we can't understand the interactions
of a few sub-atomic particles, if Poincare's 3 body problem still plagues
computational analysis, if combinatorial explosion still represents a major
stumbling block in AI, cautious optimism dictates we should refrain from
believing in those things which at present we know bugger all about.
However, I have some sympathy with Ron Blue's ideas, we may not need those
levels of complexities to emulate _discrete_ functions of the CNS, but this
is a whole other story from emulating or storing a person.
If you think understanding global cerebral function is easy then please
explain why there is still raging controversy about the aetiology of
depression. And don't tell me its about serotonin! That is simply the tip of
<mrdoubter at webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14294-3E11DD6E-67 at storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Sorry for you Collins. Unless you have spent the past several years
> working in this field (which if you have, I would find most
> interesting), then what you have postulated is still more conservative
> mind set (ie don't confuse me with facts etc.) And what has been shown
> to be a fact at this point in history regards many discoveries and
> improvements in matters deemed 'impossible' by the 'all wise' of their
> time. Man would never walk on the moon is the classic example. You seem
> to base your opinions on what came before and perhaps on anecdotal
> 'evidence.' Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction. Now if you have
> worked in this field, it might be different. How did you glean this
> knowledge (because that is all my question regards, actually is
> mr D
More information about the Neur-sci