Matt Jones wrote:
> And the idea that the brain is less complex than the liver "on the
> of molecular
> biology", or less complex than a car is equally absurd and insulting.
I think that the brain becomes very complex if you look at it with a
model of the system that does not exactly fit the actual processes going
in the brain.
The similarity with a car may be striking
"What is controlling the car?"
We see them drive on the roads and (somtimes) stop at certain signs or
They exchange chemics at certain places called gasstations.
We may model these cars as automates that follow the roads like
the red cells in the bloodstream. We may even think that they are
not controlled at all.
But on the lower level we see that they are not following the road
at all, and they are even crossing fields, through fences, and
crash sometimes at certain places.
But we may model these as "accidents" and think of them as
caused by external signals or caused by system faults.
If the persons inside would be invisible and unmeasureable we
would only see a small change in the force of the steering-wheel
and the pendals sometimes. A "non-believer" in "persons" may
even suggest that these forces are soo small related to
the actual forces in the car, that it would be unlikely for such
a "person" to exist and more likely that it would be "mis-measurements".
It is even impossible to predict these forces since they occur almost
and do not occur in cars that are "out of order".
Yet everyone knows these forces exist.
If the brain would have some connection with forces (EM-type) that have
physics in the brain effictively, we would see small signals sometimes
unpredictable to the basic system (the car).
Most low-frequency signals do show this signature, and
it is clear that the brain is amplifying lowfrequency signals for
some reason unrelated to the basic system.
A system can become very simple if you look at it in a different way.