On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Aug 16, 3:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > You can simulate it as far as being able to model the aspects of it's
> > > behavior that you can observe, but you can't necessarily predict that
> > > behavior over time, any more than you can predict what other people
> > > might say to you today. The chemistry and physics of the brain are
> > > partially determined by the experiences of the environment through the
> > > body, and partially determined by the sensorimotive agenda of the
> > > mind, which are both related to but not identical with the momentum
> > > and consequences of it's neurological biochemistry. All three are are
> > > woven together as an inseparable whole.
> >
> > If the brain does something not predictable by modelling its
> > biochemistry that means it works by magic.
> Then you are saying that whether you accept what I'm what I'm writing
> here or not is purely predictable through biochemistry alone or else
> must be 'magic'. So in order for you to change your mind, some
> substance needs to cross your blood brain barrier, and that the
> content of your mind - the meaning of what you are choosing to think
> about right now can only be magic. I think my approach is much more
> scientific. I'm not prejudging what the solution can or cannot be in
> advance.
> If you want to call psychology magic, that's ok with me, but it
> certainly drives biochemistry as much as it is driven by biochemistry.
> Why is it so hard to accept that both levels of reality are in fact
> real? Our body doesn't seem to have a problem taking commands from our
> mind. Why should I deny that those commands have a source which cannot
> be adequately described in terms of temperature and pressure or
> voltage? To presume that we can only know what the mind is by studying
> it's shadow in the brain is, I think catastrophically misguided and
> ultimately unworkable. If not for our own experiences of the mind,
> biochemistry would not tell us that such a thing could possibly exist.
Do high-level patterns in the brain explain to some extent what occurs on
lower levels?  I think so.  Are the laws of physics or chemistry violated by
these higher level processes?  I think not.

I have explained how that if we can model particle interactions, and the
brain does not violate these laws of particle interactions, then intelligent
can be found in some programs running on a Turing machine.  If you disagree
you need to give a reason why either a particle simulation is not possible,
or the brain's behavior is determined by things other than particle

For example, Colin said that particle simulation of intelligence is
impossible because one's model had to include every particle in the universe
for the simulation to be accurate.  While I disagree, he at least proposed a
reason.  What is yours?



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