the correct analogy.
>>When I observe the direction in which neuroscience is headed, I see no other
>>outcome than a brain that thinks and decides. Talk of an "executing process"
>>is just babble by those who will not undertake the labor of "hard" science.
>>Then I guess all computer scientists just babble, because the
>computer science literature is full of talk of executing processes.
Well, the very distinction is not that obvious.
The very idea of executing process is pretty confused.
The process in computer is basically utterly dumb,
predetermined and not goal oriented.
Whatever comes around, it simply executes.
The condition changes at the input, it jumps to a different
predetermined location. It is not even clear what kind of
think the process is. You can look at it from many standpoints.
No so in mind.
Mind has intent. The process generaly does not.
Mind can modify the rules. The process is predetermined.
Mind has an idea of self image and is capable of
evaluating itself, while process can not.
You can twist things around quite a bit and get
various "proofs" or disproofs of the point, but there
is something essentially different between the idea
of a mind and a process.
Generally, process has a specific predetermined
amount of energy, to be used to carry out a specific,
The mind can simply create a completely new task
at any given moment. It can decide to quit processing
in the middle of the input stream, and many other
things of that nature. It may decide to completely
and deliberately contradict the input in order to
extract a different angle. You can argue that the
same thing is possible with the process, but the
very reference at the bottom it all is different.
Mind is driven by the higher levels of awareness,
meaning and purpose, while process is already
the highest thing in the system, if you can put
it this way.