On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

One thing that we have found with all new physical phenomena is that
they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically.
You're postulating that not only does the brain use processes that we
have not yet discovered, but that these processes, unlike everything
else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic. What reason have
you for postulating this?

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to