In article <3fn7mf$3fq at strauss.udel.edu> greggt at strauss.udel.edu (Thomas R. Gregg) writes:
>Path: netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!udel!news-4.nss.udel.edu!strauss.udel.edu!not-for-mail
>From: greggt at strauss.udel.edu (Thomas R. Gregg)
>Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience
>Subject: brain and mind
>Date: 19 Jan 1995 21:38:07 -0500
>Organization: University of Delaware
>Lines: 47
>Message-ID: <3fn7mf$3fq at strauss.udel.edu>
>References: <009891F1.1E1D4400 at SHSU.edu> <3eb0j1$4ju at ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3f99dp$3eb at strauss.udel.edu> <pitharat.78.2F1ED42B at sas.upenn.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: strauss.udel.edu
>Prat Itharat <pitharat at sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>>All of our thoughts and feelings, no matter how euphoric or bizzare are
>>>>due to interactions of neurochemicals, neurons, hormones, etc.>...
>>>>Ray
>>>>I have to disagree on that point. We just don't have enough evidence to come
>>to such a conclusion at this time. If all of our thoughts and feelings are
>>based on neurological interactions and changes, how can you explain the
>>multitude and vast range of emotions that we have?
>>How can you explain the combination of emotions?
>There are billions of neurons and maybe trillions of synapses in the
>brain. Each neuron is capable of entering many different states. How
>many emotions is it possible to have? a few thousand? How many thoughts?
>Millions? If a person had a different thought every minute she was alive,
>the total number of thoughts would be 42 million. Think of a computer.
>It can perform many tasks, due to thousands (or millions) of transistors
>and millions of memory spaces. The computer's input is from keyboard and
>mouse. The brain's input is from the senses. The computer's output
>goes to the video screen and disk drive. The brain's output is thought,
>emotions, and behavior.
Why has artificial intelligence come to such a stand still then?
Do you think that eventually, we will be able to create a "brain" that will be
able to feel, think, and behave in a similar way a human does.
>>>It's safer to say thoughts & feelings are *correlated with* neural
activity.
>>>Tom
>>Perhaps neural activity is "correlated with" thoughts and feelings. Let me
>>propose a very radical idea [in terms of how the scientific community views
>>it]. Let's assume that we have a "mind" that is a separate identity from the
>>brain. The mind controls our thoughts and emotions [of course, with inputs
>>from the brain]. This, in turn, causes neurological changes.
>That sounds like dualism. A reductionist neuroscientist would say, "Why
>introduce the concept of a mind? It seems possible to explain most animal
>behavior in terms of brain activity. Why do our theories need something
>controlling the brain?"
Why introduce it? Because sometimes what we intially think is correct, is, in
fact, not.
>How can we measure the "mind"? What is the source of energy for the
>"mind"? Where is it located? What is it made of, matter or energy? If
>energy, what kind of energy? What is the nature of the brain/mind
>interface?
There is no precise definition of the mind as there is no precise definition
of love. There will never be. We, can not measure the mind because it is in
another realm from the physical world we live in. It certainly is not made up
of matter. The interface is so basic that we just have to take it for granted
[I know it sounds pretty lame].
>>-=Prat=-
>>ps) I did not mean to offend anyone. If I did, I am truely sorry. I'm just
>>trying to express what I believe in.
>Tom
>--
>Tom
Tom, and anyone else who wishes to follow-up, please follow up to my e-mail
address. I believe that this newsgroup [and correct me if I am wrong] mainly
deals with scientific studies, research, problems, etc. in the field of
neurology and not with philosophical discussion. Thanks.... and sorry I had
to post the follow up here.
-Prat
