The problem is that it isn't clear that communicating with neurons means. Neurons are basic binary logic swithches. they fire or they don't; mulitple other neurons connect with a neuron and either increase the chance of a neuron from firing. Emotion and intelligence etc probably has to do about the state of suites of neurons and systems
To add in my 2 pesos:
What Dr. Zim is describing is the current, "holistic" (as opposed to 'reductionist') view of neural networks. IOW, It probably takes a group of neurons working in tandem, or in a specific system to form or trigger consciousness or memory. A single neuron probably can't support complex processes (think of them as an on/off switch), but the more neurons you have in a system, the more possibly complex the thought patterns. However, more neurons do not indicate the *existence* of more complex patterns, merely their *potential*.
I believe the best comparison in electronics terms would be multiple crosslinked (parallel?) processors working simultaneously. Nick (for example) could probably define it better. :-)
Reggie posted:
<<Virtual reality will mix with reality, with some consequences that sound stranger than fiction. Kurzweil blithely explains how people will be able to beam out their entire flow of sensory experience—and even the neurological correlates of their emotions—onto the Web. "You'd be able to plug in and see what it's like to be someone else," Kurzweil says (as in Being John Malkovich). "That will aid our empathy.">>
A nice thought, but I believe it's still a pipe dream on some level. If every person interacts with his/her environment in a subjectively individual manner, and everyone's brain interprets say, the color "blue" differently, then what we see when we interact with someone else's brain is our interpretation of what they see and not truly experiencing the world through their senses.
Metaphysical philosophy sucks, doesn't it?
:-)
Jon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
