Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 21 Aug 2009, at 22:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
> 
>> Flammarion wrote:
>>> Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic
>>> level,
>>> you still wouldn't have captured all the information?
>>>
>> That's an interesting question and one that I think relates to the
>> importance of context.  A scan of your brain would capture all the
>> information in the Shannon/Boltzman sense, i.e. it would determine  
>> which
>> of the possible configurations and processes were realized.  However,
>> those concerned about the "hard problem", will point out that this
>> misses the fact that the information represents or "means" something.
>> To know the meaning of the information would require knowledge of the
>> world in which the brain acts and perceives, including a lot of
>> evolutionary history.  Image scanning the brain of an alien found   
>> in a
>> crash at Roswell.  Without knowledge of how he acts and the  
>> evolutionary
>> history of his species it would be essentially impossible to guess the
>> meaning of the patterns in his brain.  My point is that it is not just
>> computation that is consciousness or cognition, but computation with
>> meaning, which means within a certain context of action.
> 
> 
> 
> If the context, or even the whole physical universe, is needed, it is  
> part of the "generalized" brain. Either the "generalized" brain is  
> Turing emulable, and the reversal reasoning will proceed, or it is  
> not, and the digital mechanist thesis has to be abandoned.

That's what makes the point interesting.  Many, even most, 
materialists suppose that a brain can be replaced by functionally 
identical elements with no dimunition of consciousness and that a 
brain is Turing-emulable BUT the "generalized brain" may not be 
Turing-emulable.  I personally would say no to a doctor who proposed 
to replace the whole physical universe (and me) with an emulation.

Brent

> 
> Humans, and actually, any mechanical entity cannot understand their  
> own patterns in their brains, but we don't need to do that to be able  
> to "use" our brain and be conscious. If the crash at Roswell has not  
> demolished the brain of E.T., or if the scan of his brain his  
> faithful, so that his brain can be reconstituted, nobody has to  
> understand the brain pattern for the E.T. himself to have an  
> experience of his consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In fact the fact that we can't see the workings of consciousness is
>> inherent it it.  We see through it.
> 
> Exactly, and this can related to what I say above.
> 
> 
>> It is notorious that thoughts come
>> into consciousness with no discernible cause - as in the Poincare  
>> effect.
> 
> That is most plausible, and there are evidence that life (notably the  
> heart and the brain) exploits the so called deterministic chaos (like  
> in Verhulst bifurcation, and the Mandelbrot set).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to