Stathis, I like your implications: *"... I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what evidence do you have that they exist?"*
I am speaking about processes we don't (yet?) know at all, like some centuries ago electricity etc. etc. and in due course we learn about phenomena not fitting into our existing 'models'. I don't volunteer to describe such processes before we learn about them (how stupid of me) - netiher do I have "evidence" for the "existence and behavior" of such unkown/able processes. Our cultural induction allows a widening of models, processes, phenomena, mechanisms. We even advanced from the Geocentric vision. Have a prosperous day John M On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:40 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Stathis, > > > > my imagination does not run that high. If I imagine myself as an alien > > scientist, I would be self centered (pretentious?) enough to imagine that > I > > know more about those stupid humans and don't have to experiment on > computer > > - THEN on the real stuff, to LEARN how they are. I would know. > > I don't 'imagine' myself such a stupid alien scientist (ha ha). > > The fact that such an 'alien scientist' (a-sc) LEARNED about humans - and > we > > just imagine such (a-sc) - is proof enough that THEY are above us in > mental > > capabilities. So it sounds weird to me to 'imagine' a smarter mind for > > ourselves how it would appraise us. > > The alien scientist example was to eliminate any preconceptions about > mind. The scientist is technically competent and is merely attempting > to model the behaviour of the brain - the trajectories of the atoms > within it. I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that > although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the > behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other > processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what > evidence do you have that they exist? > > > ANother question: do you find it reasonable that such (a-sc) will condone > > all those figments of our human existence which we live with (e.g. food, > > human logical questions/answers, etc.)? even our material-figmented > physical > > world? > > They may or they may not. I am assuming for the sake of this example > that they do not consider such questions at all, but only the > mechanics of human behaviour. Like us trying to understand the > behaviour of a cyclone, which is separate from the question of whether > the cyclone has good or bad effects or indeed whether the cyclone has > some sort of mind. > > > We, humans, are a peculiar kind, in our so far evolved mini-solipsism of > the > > world we are even less informed that possible, closed in into our > 'mindset' > > of yesterday (I think we agreed on that on this list) and our imagination > > can work also only WITHIN. (With few very slowly achievable > > extensions/expansions that will be added to 'yesterday's' inventory.) > > > > Even if we pretend to free-up and step beyond - as in 'fantastic' sci-fi. > > > > John M > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.