Ray Scanlon wrote:
> "James Hunter" <James.Hunter at Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:39A2FFDA.A3D11391 at Jhuapl.edu...> > Your theory of the brain is OK, but the critical part concerning AI and
> > particulary comp.ai.philosophy
> > is the question on your Webpage:
> >
> > "What is thought except a movement that is not connected to a motor
> neuron?"
> >
> > The answer is:
> >
> > "Thought is something to think about".
>> It is the religionists who "think about thinking".
Not really. "thinking about thinking" is fine, normal, everyday
logic, if you *terminate* it. Turing machines, finite algorithms
all come in that category.
>>> The whole purpose of my little exercise was to show how a motor program
> could be stopped en route and never arrive at the motor neurons. This to be
> done with what I call Science, that is to remove God (soul, mind) from the
> machine.
>> When this is done, the religionists are free to debate on how these actions
> of the neurons are related to the experiences of the soul (mind).
>> In my opinion, when the neuroscientists have worked out the brain, Science
> will be seen to have culminated in this final assault on the physical world.
> Religion will become more important in the form of philosophy.
It not really a science though, it's more of an engineering issue.
