Sergio, I am making an effort to try to understand what you are saying. I am also trying to avoid making personal attacks. However, I have major problems when someone claims that he has -the answer- when he does not have -the proof-. So I have been making more personal criticisms about your attitude about your own theory, not to to win the argument or to personally trounce you, but to see if you are able to acknowledge that you cannot possibly be certain about your theory without actually making it do what you say it can do. Once you acknowledge some serious uncertainty about the theory, or I come to the conclusion that you are unable to do that, I want to try to figure out what your theory is about.
I did not understand this at first, but now I think that you are saying that the response a person makes in situations where some uncertainty exist, will be an invariant given those situations. Is that right or is it wrong? Regardless of the knowledge someone has about what might follow, the response that a person chooses in the face of uncertainty is one in which the entropy of the information that the person has about the situation will be minimized so that the useful information is retained. Is this essentially right? It should be obvious that this is going to be an imperfect process given that some situations are more complicated than others. Isn't that right? Is it possible that your theory is only a physical-reaction-of-the-brain response to a problem of overwhelming uncertainty and therefore not a sound theory derived from insight? Two more criticisms. One is that you are choosing some of the laws of physics while ignoring others and then claiming that these laws that you have chosen explain how the brain works. The brain is obviously a complicated organ, so how can you claim that your choice of abstractions from physics can explain it? Secondly. We learn from previous experiences. We learn that we do have choices. And we learn that many of the choices we have can be made without immediately threatening our survival. Why aren't my choices based on insight (right or wrong)? Knowledge that is only derived from the essence of an abstract system is usually pretty frail. Isn't it possible that the mind is physical organ capable of dealing with insight and therefore capable of reacting in ways that are less efficient than your theory is suggesting. You have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a lot of energy so why would you continue to insist that you know exactly how the brain acts to conserve energy without any experience in the field of neural science? (I am not saying that we must not talk about such things, I am only saying that we cannot honestly claim that our knowledge of the basics of neural science are absolutely correct.) Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
