On 2/9/2011 3:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Mikes<jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
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,
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.
Physical laws aren't "out there". They are models we invent. So of
course we like to invent algorithmic ones because they are more usable.
People used to invent non-algorithmic ones, like "Zeus does that when
he's angry." but they were hard to apply. QM is entirely algorithmic
since it includes inherent randomness. However this is probably not
important for the function of brains.
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?
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
For more options, visit this group at